CCPR/C/109/D/1910/2009 Naumov, of 2 March 2009, in which he called her son and his co-defendants “criminals” before they had been convicted. 2.4 The author also submits that the first instance court was prejudiced against her son, under the influence of the media and high-ranking public officials, who had already declared him guilty. She submits that, while the prosecution had charged her son with intent to commit armed robbery, the court convicted him of premeditated murder, which is a more serious crime and an accusation against which he did not have the possibility to prepare a defence. 2.5 On 21 October 2009, a lawyer representing the author’s son before the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court requested Remand Unit (SIZO) No. 1 of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to provide him with a copy of his client’s medical records from the moment of Mr. Zhuk’s transfer for placement in custody to Prison No. 8 in Zhodino. On 26 October 2009, the lawyer received a copy of a medical certificate, from which it transpires that, during a medical examination on 16 March 2009, injuries were identified on the body of the author’s son (dark blue bruises on the body). The lawyer presented the medical certificate to the cassation court together with a complaint that the author’s son had been ill-treated in custody on 1 March 2009 while in pretrial detention. In that complaint, the author submits that the issues of violations of her son’s rights under articles 7 and 14, paragraph 3 (g), of the Covenant were raised. The Supreme Court rejected this complaint. 2.6 On 27 October 2009, the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court rejected the author’s son’s appeal on cassation and upheld his death sentence. The author submits that in the cassation appeal her son raised the issues of violations of his rights under articles 6, 9 (para. 3) and 14 of the Covenant. The author maintains that in that manner all domestic remedies had been exhausted. The complaint 3. The author submits that her son’s rights under articles 6 (paras. 1 and 2), 7, 9 (para. 3) and 14 (paras. 1, 2 and 3 (b), (d) and (g)) of the Covenant, were violated by the State party, because he was subjected to an arbitrary arrest, ill-treatment after his arrest and was sentenced to death after an unfair trial. State party’s observations on admissibility and interim measures 4.1 On 1 December 2009, the State party submits that it considers the review of the author’s case by the Committee unacceptable, since the initiation of a procedure before the Committee “lacks basic legal ground” under articles 2 and 5 (para. 2 (b)) of the Optional Protocol, namely the author’s son failed to exhaust the domestic legal remedies in that he did not submit an application for a supervisory review by the Supreme Court. The State party submits that the submission of the author constitutes an abuse of the right to submission under article 3 of the Optional Protocol because her son failed to submit a request for a supervisory review to the Supreme Court. 4.2 The State party further submits that the alleged violations of the rights of the author’s son are not supported by evidence and do not correspond to reality. It maintains that his guilt was proven beyond doubt in accordance with the domestic criminal and criminal procedure legislation. It maintains that the author’s allegations under article 6 of the Covenant are unfounded, since that article permits the death penalty, with the limitation that the sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons under 18 years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women. The State party submits that its legislation limits the use of the death penalty further than the Covenant, since it can only be imposed for the most serious crime — murder with aggravated circumstances — and it cannot be imposed on women, minors and men older than 65 years of age. It maintains that, 5