CCPR/C/125/D/2313/2013 evaluation of the evidence or amounted to a denial of justice. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the author’s claim under article 14 (1) of the Covenant is insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.6 The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated his remaining claims, raising issues under articles 9 (1) (2) and (4) and 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Considerations of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim under article 9 that he was arbitrarily detained from 4 June to 24 July 2009, when his detention was finally reviewed by the Bishkek city court. The Committee observes that, at the time of his arrest, the author was suspected of only one crime that carried a maximum penalty of three years in prison, whereas article 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code allowed for a pretrial arrest only if the maximum penalty for the crime exceeded three years in prison (para. 3.2). The Committee also notes the State party’s submission that in exceptional cases an arrest can also be sanctioned in cases where the penalty is less than three years if one of the following circumstances is present in the case: the suspect does not have a permanent place of residence; or his/her identity has not been established; or he/she has been hiding from law enforcement authorities or courts (para. 4.2). However, the Committee notes that the Bishkek city court later established that the author had a permanent place of residence, his identity had been established and he did not hide from or obstruct the investigation (para. 2.5). Therefore, the Committee considers that in the present case, the decision to sanction the author’s arrest was not in compliance with the national law and thus was arbitrary in nature. The Committee concludes that in these circumstances, and in the absence of pertinent information or explanations from the State party, the facts as submitted amount to a violation of the author’s rights as protected under article 9 (1) of the Covenant. 7.3 The Committee further notes the author’s claim that the State party failed to promptly inform him of the reasons for his arrest and detention, contrary to article 9 (2) of the Covenant, and to provide him with a copy of the Pervomaisky district court decision of 6 June 2009 sanctioning his arrest for two months, hence denying him the right to appeal against his detention until 8 July 2009, contrary to article 9 (4) of the Covenant (paras 2.1– 2.2 and 2.4). The Committee notes that the State party has not refuted these allegations. In the circumstances, the Committee considers that due weight must be given to the author’s allegations provided that they are sufficiently substantiated. Accordingly, the Committee considers that, in the circumstances of the present case, the facts as presented by the author amount to a violation of the author’s rights under article 9 (2) and (4) of the Covenant. 7.4 The Committee further notes the author’s claim under article 14 (3) (d) that he was denied legal assistance at the time of his detention by the State Financial Police on 4 June 2009 and later at the Pervomaisky district court on 6 June 2009 (paras. 2.1–2.2). The Committee also notes the author’s allegation that he was allowed to contact his lawyer only on 26 June 2009, i.e. 22 days after his actual detention, and this lawyer was only then able to obtain copies of his case file and appeal against his arrest (paras. 2.3–2.4). The Committee observes that it has already been established by the 24 July 2009 decision of the Bishkek city court and by the internal investigation by the Ministry of Justice in 2012 that the lawyer named in the 6 June 2009 decision of the Pervomaisky district court was not present during any of the interrogations or hearings and signed the documents post factum (paras. 2.2 and 2.5). In the absence of any pertinent observations from the State party, the Committee considers that in the present case the author’s rights to defence as protected under article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant have been violated. 8. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author’s rights under articles 9 (1), (2) and (4) and 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant. 6