CCPR/C/122/D/2577/2015 Furthermore, Mr. Formonov’s additional sentence was handed down because he had violated internal prison regulations. He was offered a counsel but chose to be unrepresented. Mr. Formonov was never placed in solitary confinement on account of those infractions; in the prison where he was serving his sentence, cells accommodate 10–12 inmates and there are no solitary confinement cells. 6.8 On 31 October 2017, the State party reiterated once again its main arguments denying all allegations of violations of Mr. Formonov’s rights under the Covenant. Author’s additional comments 7.1 On 19 June 2017, the author challenged what were described as new inconsistencies in the State party’s narrative, the legal assertions that did not comply with due process standards under international law, and the lack of a response to crucial allegations in the communication. According to the author, the State party’s narrative of the arrest set forth in its additional submission conflicted with the narrative it had given in the first observations; did not respond directly to the allegations that evidence had been fabricated by the police; and remained unconvincing in its assertion that Mr. Formonov had not been tortured to procure a confession. 7.2 The author submits that the State party continued to refer to dubious or secret evidence, alleging that Mr. Formonov had been recorded as threatening U.M. However, neither any recording nor a transcript of such was ever provided to the defence or made publicly available. The State party did not respond directly to the author’s allegation that, in fact, the police had applied the chemical powder to Mr. Formonov’s fingers, hair and eyebrows after he had been arrested. 7.3 While the State party admitted that the search had been conducted without a warrant, it suggested that no such warrant had been needed under article 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code because the search had been conducted under exigent circumstances, without explaining what such exigent circumstances were to justify a warrantless search. Furthermore, it did not explain why the police had needed to seize all of the human rights literature at Mr. Formonov’s home and why the authorities had failed to produce a list of all items taken from the apartment. The materials confiscated had related to Mr. Formonov’s human rights work and not to his alleged crime. 7.4 The State party erroneously asserted that 11.5 hours of access to documents, provided to Mr. Yakubov less than one week before the trial took place, had constituted adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence. Mr. Yakubov had been banned from representing Mr. Formonov at the request of senior investigator K., who had claimed it was likely that Mr. Yakubov would be called to testify about the content of a tape recording between Mr. Formonov and U.M. and thus could not act as witness and representative. That tape recording was never produced and Mr. Yakubov was never called to testify. Mr. Formonov was not given the opportunity to name a replacement attorney of his choice but instead forced to continue with the assistance of two State-appointed attorneys. He was not present to witness or cross-examine any of the testimony or evidence given against him. The State party did not provide a convincing explanation as to why he had been removed from the trial. Mr. Formonov’s act of dissent had not been to make loud noise and disrupt the court’s proceedings, but rather to remain silent and turn his back to the judge. It would be difficult to conclude that a silent defendant was so disruptive as to require his removal from the courtroom. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 10