CCPR/C/122/D/2577/2015 5.15 Mr. Formonov was beaten to force him to sign a statement admitting that he had broken prison regulations. The State party’s account of his alleged violation of the prison regulations indicates that his additional conviction was “in connection” with the 20 disciplinary punishments. However, the judgment of 1 May 2015 handed down by the Kungrad District Court shows that he was only tried for four infractions, which had allegedly occurred a few months prior to his release date. Mr. Formonov denied committing these infractions but confirmed that he had been placed in punishment cells for the commission of such infractions. The additional five years’ imprisonment is a further violation of Mr. Formonov’s rights to a fair trial, free expression and to be free from arbitrary detention. The court did not allow Mr. Formonov to communicate with a counsel of his own choosing, and he was not permitted the assistance of counsel during the hearing. The court solely relied on witness statements by prison guards and did not permit Mr. Formonov to cross-examine such witnesses. Although the sentencing judgment states that the hearing was “open”, neither Mr. Formonov’s counsel nor his family members were informed of the hearing and were therefore prevented from attending. 5.16 Despite serious violations of Criminal Procedure Code and international standards of due process, the Kungrad District Court concluded that the witness statements had been reliable and admissible and that Mr. Formonov’s guilt had been fully proven. However, even if Mr. Formonov had been afforded due process and were still found to have made offensive statements, the five-year sentence was wildly disproportionate to the severity of his “crimes”, as was his placement in an isolation cell for extended periods of time for such offences. Taken at their worst, Mr. Formonov’s alleged crimes amount to merely an administrative infraction of failing to wear proper identification and insults which do not incite violence. Once again, Mr. Formonov has been sentenced to extended imprisonment on the basis of his exercise of a fundamental right which, coupled with the due process violations, has ensured that he will continue to be a victim of arbitrary detention for an additional five years.8 5.17 Mr. Formonov has suffered numerous post-conviction violations of his rights related to the denial of visitation from his attorneys, being held in solitary confinement and torture. His attorneys have twice been prevented from visiting their client. On 1 March 2016, one attorney, Mr. Parpieva, went to the prison to visit him, but was denied entry. On 1 May 2016, another attorney, Mr. Mardiev, was also denied access. 5.18 From 23 May to 19 June and from 10 to 20 October 2007, Mr. Formonov was incarcerated in an unheated isolation cell. He has since been held in an isolation cell on various occasions: on 24 January, 17 February and 9 March 2015, he was placed in an isolation cell respectively for 5, 10 and 20 days, allegedly for insulting inmates. In 2007, his legs and feet were beaten so severely that he was unable to walk for 10 days. In 2008, he was beaten until he agreed to sign a statement that he had violated prison regulations. In 2011, he was strangled and beaten until he agreed to sign a statement that he was being held in good conditions and with access to medical treatment. Such beatings were also accompanied by verbal threats against his family. The State party has also attempted to hide its treatment of Mr. Formonov by preventing family visitation while he bore marks of torture or by removing him from the prison during visits by the Red Cross. In February 2012, he conducted a hunger strike to protest his torture and the denial of family visits. State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 13 April 2017, the State party reiterated its previous observations. It challenged the author’s assertion that evidence used to convict Mr. Formonov had been fabricated and his confession had been obtained under physical duress, by reiterating a detailed narrative of the crime and arrest. It explained that Mr. Formonov had received money from U.M. at a bus stop at around 7 a.m., before fleeing the scene upon the arrival of the police. After fleeing by walking through a provincial hospital and then taking a public minibus home, Mr. Formonov then drove back to the crime scene, where he was apprehended as a suspect. The conversation of 28 April 2006 between Mr. Formonov and U.M. was recorded and the 8 8 At the time of the submission, Mr. Formonov was appealing this additional conviction through the domestic courts. No further information is on file.