Advance unedited version CCPR/C/133/D/2619/2015 Mr Statkevich was physically beaten. He was forced to sleep on the floor with the lights on, he was refused access to a toilet, he was kept among prisoners with infectious diseases. He was transported to an unknown location with an intimidation purpose, during any movements he had his hands bound with handcuffs behind his back. The authorities have subjected Mr. Statkevich to incommunicado detention for several months and denied him access to counsel; officers harassed him and threatened him. In the absence of the State party’s observations on these allegations, due weight must be given to the author’s claims, and the Committee considers that the facts as submitted disclose a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 7.3 In the light of the above conclusions, the Committee does not find it necessary to examine separately the author’s claims under article 10 of the Covenant. 7.4 The Committee notes the author’s claim, under article 9 of the Covenant, that Mr. Statkevich was not informed about the reasons of his arrest and charges against him, his pretrial detention was also unlawful as it was not justified. The first time he was brought before a judge was more than five months after his arrest, when the trial began.24 The Committee notes that the State party has not demonstrated that Mr. Statkevich’s arrest was reasonable and necessary. In the absence of any further information, therefore, the Committee concludes that there has been a violation of article 9 (1) of the Covenant. 7.5 The Committee further notes the author’s claim that Mr. Statkevich remand in custody was sanctioned by the Prosecutor, who is not authorized by law to exercise judicial power, as required by article 9 (3) of the Covenant. The Committee recalls that the above-mentioned provision entitles a detained person charged with a criminal offence to judicial control of his/her detention. It is inherent to the proper exercise of judicial power that it be exercised by an authority that is independent, objective and impartial in relation to the issues dealt with.25 The Committee is, therefore, not satisfied that the Prosecutor could be regarded as having the institutional objectivity and impartiality necessary to be considered an officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power within the meaning of article 9 (3) of the Covenant,26 and concludes that there has been a violation of that provision. 7.6 The Committee notes the author’s claims that Mr. Statkevich was denied a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal, in violation of article 14 (1) of the Covenant (see paras. 2.6 and 3.4 above), and that the State party’s courts did not offer him the minimum guarantees set forth in article 14 (3) (b) (d) and (e) of the Covenant. The Committee also notes the author’s claim that, during his pre-trial detention in the premises of the KGB, the author underwent long interrogations during the night, without the presence of his lawyer and that he was held incommunicado and denied access to counsel during three months after his arrest. Later, the counsel’s access was restricted. The Committee also notes the author’s claim that, his counsel was not permitted to confront the prosecution’s key witnesses and the court failed to compel a number of witnesses. In the absence of comments from the State party to counter the author’s allegations, the Committee concludes that the facts before it constitutes a violation of article 14 (1) and (3) (b) (d) and (e), of the Covenant. 7.7 With regard to the allegations of violations of article 14 (2), the Committee notes the author’s claim that Mr. Statkevich’s right to be presumed innocent has been violated, because the state-controlled media and the State party’s highest authorities publicly accused him of attempting to overthrow the incumbent President, and stated that the author was guilty of having committed crimes in connection with the events of 19 December 2010 before his guilt had been duly established by the court (see paras. 3.4 and 3.5 above). The author also claimed that he was handcuffed and placed in a cage in the courtroom throughout the hearings relating to his case. The State party did not contest those allegations. The Committee recalls that the accused person’s right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court is guaranteed by the Covenant. In the absence of any relevant information from the State party, 24 25 26 See, for example, Alphen v. Netherlands (CCPR/C/39/D/305/1988), para. 5.8. See Kulomin v. Hungary (CCPR/C/50/D/521/1992), para. 11.3; and Platonov v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/85/D/1218/2003), para. 7.2. See Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 32. 9