CCPR/C/109/D/1910/2009 a detained person is brought before a judge should not exceed 48 hours. 17 Any longer period of delay would require special justification to be compatible with article 9, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. 18 The Committee therefore considers the delay of more than three months before bringing Mr. Zhuk before a judge to be incompatible with the requirement of promptness set forth in article 9, paragraph 3 of the Covenant and thus constitutes a violation of Mr. Zhuk’s rights under this provision. 8.4 The Committee further notes the author’s allegations that the principle of presumption of innocence was not respected, because several State officials made public statements about her son’s guilt before his conviction by the court and because mass media made materials of the preliminary investigation available to the public at large before the consideration of his case by the court. Moreover, he was kept in a metal cage throughout the court proceedings and the photographs of him behind metal bars in the courtroom were published in the local media. The Committee also notes that these allegations were not refuted by the State party. In this respect, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence 19 as reflected in its general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, according to which “the presumption of innocence, which is fundamental to the protection of human rights, imposes on the prosecution the burden of proving the charge, guarantees that no guilt can be presumed until the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, ensures that the accused has the benefit of doubt, and requires that persons accused of a criminal act must be treated in accordance with this principle”. 20 The same general comment refers to the duty of all public authorities to refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial, including by abstaining from making public statements affirming the guilt of the accused; 21 it further states that defendants should normally not be shackled or kept in cages during trial or otherwise presented to the court in a manner indicating that they may be dangerous criminals and that the media should avoid news coverage undermining the presumption of innocence. On the basis of the information before it and in the absence of any response from the State party, the Committee considers that the presumption of innocence of Mr. Zhuk guaranteed under article 14, paragraph 2, of the Covenant has been violated. 8.5 The Committee further notes the author’s allegations that her son has only been allowed to see a lawyer for five minutes and has effectively been deprived of legal assistance during the initial phases of the investigative proceedings, and that he was forced to participate in investigative actions without legal advice, despite his requests for a lawyer, in violation of the domestic criminal proceedings. The Committee also notes that these allegations were not refuted by the State party. The Committee recalls that article 14, paragraph 3 (b), of the Covenant provides that accused persons must have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence and to communicate with counsel of their own choosing. This provision is an important element of the guarantee of a fair trial and an application of the principle of equality of arms. 22 It further recalls that the right of all 17 18 19 20 21 22 See, for example, concluding observations on Kuwait, CCPR/CO/69/KWT, para. 21; concluding observations on Zimbabwe, CCPR/C/79/Add.89, para. 17; concluding observations on El Salvador, CPR/C/SLV/CO/6, para. 14; concluding observations on Gabon, CCPR/CO/70/GAB, para. 13. See Borisenko v. Hungary, para. 7.4. See also Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, adopted at the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, 27 August–7 September 1990, principle 7. See, for example, communications No. 770/1997, Gridin v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 20 July 2000, para. 8.3; No. 1520/2006, Mwamba v. Zambia, Views adopted on 10 March 2010, para. 6.5. See Committee’s general comment No. 32, para. 30. Ibid., para. 30. Ibid., para. 32. 11