CCPR/C/122/D/2577/2015 transcript showed that Mr. Formonov had requested 600,000 Sum, including 500,000 in order for Mr. Formonov to convince his organization’s leadership not to publish compromising facts against U.M. and 100,000 for Mr. Formonov himself. Chemical powder used to mark the extorted money was found on Mr. Formonov’s hands, face and hair. His co-accused, A.K., confessed his guilt admitting that they had received money from U.M. 6.2 The State party submits that no search warrant was needed under article 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code because the search had been ordered by the investigator and conducted under exigent circumstances. Furthermore, the State party states that there was no recorded evidence in the criminal case file and no corroborating materials that the author had been struck and hospitalized. In response to the allegation that the materials seized had been irrelevant to Mr. Formonov’s crime of extortion, the State party argues that no human rights literature was seized and, because he used his office equipment to commit the crime, the confiscation of such equipment was relevant to the investigation. On 1 May 2006, Mr. Formonov was detained as accused. On 18 May, the pretrial investigation was completed and the case sent to the Yangier District Court. 6.3 The State party gives a narrative of the trial and contends that Mr. Formonov’s guilt was evidenced by a confession given freely in the presence of his attorney, Mr. Kholikberdiev, at the pretrial phase. His other attorney, Mr. Nomozov, explored changing the legal basis of Mr. Formonov’s crime. Mr. Yakubov, Mr. Formonov’s chosen representative, had ample time to prepare for the criminal case. He was allowed to study the case file for three hours on 8 June and for eight and a half hours on 9 June 2006. On 12 June 2006, he requested additional time to study the case. The hearing was adjourned to the next day, and Mr. Yakubov was invited by telephone to continue to study the documents, yet he refused. He was removed from the case due to his refusal to follow the judge’s instructions. Mr. Formonov was removed for some duration at his trial because he refused to follow the judge’s instructions, instead turning his back to the court and remaining silent. He refused to participate in the debates and to make a final statement. Furthermore, neither Mr. Formonov nor his relatives requested to attend the appeals trial, at which his attorney, Mr. Mamadaliev, was present. Mr. Formonov’s fair trial complaints stemming from the trial of first instance were examined and discarded by the appeals court. He received a copy of the decision of the appeals court against a written acknowledgment. 9 6.4 The State-appointed lawyers, Messrs. Kholikberdiev and Mamadaliev, were not under Government influence. As evidence that no physical or psychological pressure was used, the State party points out that counsel Nomozov was present during Mr. Formonov’s confessions. There were no restrictions on Mr. Formonov during the investigation stage in bringing a complaint about the alleged torture. He was able on 11 May 2006 to file a petition requesting that he be released on bail and to produce a confession statement requesting a change in the legal basis of his crime to article 168 (swindling). 6.5 His guilt was established by all the collected evidence. His testimony contradicted the co-accused and the victim’s testimonies, and the transcript of the recorded conversation between them. If Mr. Formonov had been subjected to torture, then his testimony would not have contradicted the rest of the evidence. Moreover, his last confession was made in the presence of counsel Nomozov.10 6.6 The case was heard in an open court session. Mr. Formonov’s representatives were permitted to attend the hearings, and the trial was open. This was confirmed by Mr. Yakubov’s complaints that in the courtroom there were many bystanders; moreover, Mr. Formonov had not previously criticized the presiding judge in his pamphlets. The State party explains that, pursuant to the domestic law, Mr. Formonov was presented to the court in a cage for his own security and the security of others. 6.7 The torture accusations were made in order to discredit the investigation and lawenforcement agencies, and this smear campaign is evidenced by the fact that Mr. Formonov did not raise any torture allegations prior to his meeting with Mr. Yakubov and his relatives. 9 10 The State party has not provided documents in support. Contested by the author — Formonov made his confession under duress in the presence of counsel Kholiberdiev. 9