CCPR/C/112/D/1773/2008 hold 50 persons — due to the large number of individuals wishing to follow the trial, even though around ten police officers in civilian clothes were sitting in the room as relatives to the injured parties. Mr. Kozulin’s lawyers’ request to use a larger room was rejected. Mr. Kozulin’s request for the trial to be videotaped was also rejected. The court also rejected as unnecessary several requests to obtain additional evidence, failed to address more than fifty petitions of the defence and refused to call witnesses seen as important for the defence, including eight officials. Of the 20 witnesses whom the defence wished to be called only four were questioned in court. The courts relied on the statements of witnesses and injured parties as obtained during the preliminary investigation. The presiding judge, shortly before the pronouncement of the judgment, ordered the room to be emptied, with the exception of two lawyers, a procurator, a registrar and a few police officers. The cassation appeal court gave rise to similar irregularities: the judges interrupted the statements by the defence; Mr. Kozulin was not allowed to attend although he had not been given a right to a final word by the trial court; and the court refused to accept as evidence the audiotapes of the trial. All that, according to the author, shows that the courts were not objective or impartial. 2.12 On 13 July 2006, the Court of the Moscow District in Minsk found Mr. Kozulin guilty under articles 339 and 342 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to five and a half years’ imprisonment. His lawyers’ appeal was rejected by the Minsk City Court on 19 September 2006; the judgment acquired the force of res judicata. The requests for supervisory review to the Chairs of the Minsk City Court and the Supreme Court were rejected on 30 November 2006 and 21 May 2007. Domestic remedies have thus been exhausted. 2.13 On 21 September 2006, Mr. Kozulin was transferred to a colony to serve his sentence. That rapid transfer prevented him from seeing his 75 year-old parents in Minsk, despite the fact that, on 19 September 2006, they had obtained court authorization to see him. On 20 October 2006, Mr. Kozulin started a hunger strike to protest the regime in place in Belarus aiming also to attract attention to the human rights situation in the country. During his hunger strike, his counsel was denied access to him, allegedly because of his state of health, and courts or the penitentiary authorities obstructed visits of foreign diplomats. No independent medical doctors were allowed to visit him, including from the International Committee of the Red Cross. The requests of Mr. Kozulin’s relatives to have him examined by an independent doctor were ignored. He was examined only once outside the prison’s medical unit, in a penitentiary hospital. At the end of his hunger strike, the care provided to him was limited to the supply of extra food and he was not allowed to receive additional parcels from his relatives. 2.14 Furthermore, Mr. Kozulin was denied normal “social contact with other prisoners”. Three prisoners with whom he had some contact were transferred to other penitentiaries. The rest of the prisoners were afraid to talk to him for fear of repercussions. He was also subjected to disciplinary measures that prevented his anticipated release. In addition, he was humiliated during his hunger strike and his walks outside were limited; he was also beaten up by a guard in January 2007. The complaint 3.1 The author claims a violation of article 7 owing to the fact that, on 2 March 2006, her father was beaten by elite anti-terror unit officers and to the conditions of his transportation to the police station. His lawyer’s complaints regarding the use of force against him were rejected. In court, police officers made false or contradictory statements. On 25 March 2006, after the dispersal of the crowd, her father was beaten by special police unit officers while not resisting. Both episodes show, according to the author, that her father is a victim of torture and inhumane and degrading treatment. As a result, her father’s rights 5