CCPR/C/112/D/1773/2008 the warnings of officials and led the group towards the office. The participants in the unauthorized march breached the public order and transport, obstructed the circulation of pedestrians and functioning of businesses and disobeyed law enforcement officers attempting to interrupt them. Mr. Kozulin wilfully destroyed a video camera used by a police officer filming. Around 4.30 p.m., Mr. Kozulin was apprehended by officers of the Almaz unit and police officers. He refused to follow their instructions and attempted to hit officers and, as a result, lawfully, physical force had to be used against him. Following his arrest, he was brought to the department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Zavodsky District in Minsk for further investigation regarding a criminal case opened on the same day under article 342 of the Criminal Code (organization of events, seriously breaching the public order). 4.37 Following verification, the Zavodsky District Procurator’s Office rejected Mr. Kozulin’s complaint of 13 April 2006. No other complaints were made by him or his representatives with the procurator’s office regarding the actions of the police. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 8 August 2008, the author notes first that, on 26 May 2008, the State party only affirms that the legality of Mr. Kozulin’s conviction was verified on cassation and supervisory review appeals. 5.2 Regarding the State party’s observations of 24 June 2008, she explains that they mainly refer to the content of the judgment and to domestic law provisions, without adducing documents or new argumentation, and they distort the facts. She reiterates her claims. In her view, the State party refers to facts not established by the courts, such as her father’s unlawful intrusion into the press centre, the destruction of the presidential portrait or his calls upon citizens to join the demonstration and their obstruction of traffic during their protest. 5.3 The author affirms that the State party failed to justify the legality of Mr. Kozulin’s arrest and custody, and was unable to refute her allegations that the restrictive provisions of domestic law discriminate against citizens and prevent them from enjoying their rights to peaceful assembly. Local authorities, supported by governmental forces, continuously violate article 21 of the Covenant. 5.4 The author disagrees with the State party’s statement that there was no larger courtroom available and contends that such arguments are used often in high-profile cases. Moreover, the court based its refusal to allow pictures or video recordings on the fact that the courtroom was overcrowded. Such an argument is inconsistent with the principles of transparency and accountability of the judiciary, according to the author. 5.5 During the trial, her father was escorted out of the courtroom several times after objecting to statements made by officials. Despite his social and professional status, he was ordered to leave the courtroom during the last minutes of his trial. 5.6 She adds that her father never received qualified medical care in prison. The State party failed to explain why the penitentiary administration dismissed all of his requests for independent medical examinations, such as by the representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross. State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 14 October 2008, the State party explains that the procedural irregularity regarding the present communication (i.e., its submission by the author rather than by Mr. Kozulin) remains unrepaired, and the author has further submitted comments on the State party’s observations. It adds that based on that lack of seriousness and respect on the 12