CCPR/C/112/D/1773/2008 investigate it promptly and impartially.8 The Committee considers that, in view of the submissions of the State party and the decisions of the State party’s courts, and the limited information and documents presented by the author, including the limited information concerning the investigations carried out by the State party, the Committee is not in a position to conclude that the State party’s authorities inflicted treatment inconsistent with article 7 of the Covenant on Mr. Kozulin on either 2 March 2006 or 25 March 2006. 9.4 For similar reasons, the Committee is not in a position to conclude that the circumstances of Mr. Kozulin’s arrest amounted to a violation of his right of peaceful assembly under article 21 of the Covenant. 9.5 The Committee notes the author’s allegations regarding the conditions under which Mr. Kozulin was held after his conviction. The Committee also notes that, although the State party denies some of those allegations, it admits that its prison authorities denied Mr. Kozulin access to his counsel and to independent medical expertise as requested during his 53-day hunger strike, a time when he particularly needed it. The State party contends that depriving him of such access was justified by health reasons, without, however, providing any explanations or evidence to support that argument. In the particular circumstances of the present case, the Committee considers that the prison authorities did not provide humane treatment to Mr. Kozulin, and concludes that the State party violated article 10 of the Covenant. 9.6 The author also claims that Mr. Kozulin’s arrest of 25 March 2006 was unlawful, his family was informed about his whereabouts only after 19 hours, instead of the 12 hours prescribed by law, his subsequent pretrial detention was unjustified and was sanctioned by a procurator, and a judge confirmed his placement in custody only after 18 days had passed, in violation of article 9, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Covenant. It notes that the State party has explained that, on 12 April 2006, the Court of the Central District in Minsk confirmed the lawfulness of Mr. Kozulin’s arrest of 25 March 2006, and its contention that those claims are groundless. 9.7 The Committee recalls that detention pending trial must be based on an individualized determination that it is reasonable and necessary in all the circumstances, for such purposes as to prevent flight, interference with evidence or the recurrence of crime, and courts must examine whether alternatives to pretrial detention would render detention unnecessary in the particular case.9 The Committee observes that the State party has failed to explain why, in the light of the facts of this particular case, it was necessary to keep Mr. Kozulin in custody prior to and during his trial. The Committee further notes that the pretrial custody was imposed on 25 March 2006 by decision of a prosecutor, and was not approved by a court until 12 April 2006. The Committee recalls its established jurisprudence that paragraph 3 of article 9 entitles a detained person charged with a criminal offence to be brought promptly within judicial control of his/her detention.10 It is inherent in the proper exercise of judicial power that it be exercised by an authority which is independent, objective and impartial in relation to the issues dealt with. The Committee 8 9 10 See the Committee’s general comment No. 20, para. 14, and, for example, communication No. 1589/2007, Gapirjanov v. Uzbekistan, Views adopted on 18 March 2010, para. 8.3. See communications No. 1369/2010, Kulov v. Kyrgyzstan, Views adopted on 26 July 2010, para. 8.3; No. 1940/2010, Cedeño v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Views adopted on 29 October 2012, para. 7.10; No. 1178/2003, Smantser v. Belarus, Views adopted on 23 October 2008, para. 10.3. See, for example, communications No. 521/1992, Kulomin v. Hungary, Views adopted on 22 March 1996, para. 11.3; No. 1218/2003, Platonov v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 1 November 2005, para. 7.2; No. 1348/2005, Ashurov v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on 20 March 2007, para. 6.5; No. 1769/2008, Ismailov v. Uzbekistan, Views adopted on 25 March 2011, para. 7.3; and No. 1787/2008, Kovsh v. Belarus, Views of 27 March 2013, para. 7.3. 15