CCPR/C/109/D/1910/2009 communications and interim measures, requested the State party not to carry out Mr. Zhuk’s death sentence while his case was under examination by the Committee. On 7 December 2009, the Committee reiterated its request. 1.3 On 23 March 2010, the Committee received information that the author’s son had been executed despite the request for interim measures. On the same date, the Committee requested urgent clarification of the matter from the State party, drawing the State party’s attention to the fact that non-respect of interim measures constitutes a violation by States parties of their obligations to cooperate in good faith under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. No response was received within the deadline. On 30 March 2010, the Committee issued a press release deploring the execution. The facts as submitted by the author 2.1 The author submits that, at around 8 p.m. on 1 March 2009, her son was arrested in one of the cafe-bars of Soligorsk by officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs on the suspicion of having assaulted and killed, on 27 February 2009, a man and a woman who were carrying money to pay the salaries of employees at the company they worked for. At the time of the arrest, he was under the influence of a narcotic substance. At 9.30 p.m. on the same day, he was escorted to the District Department of Internal Affairs, where he immediately requested a lawyer. The author’s son was allowed to see a lawyer for five minutes only (from 10.02 to 10.07 p.m.) at the beginning of the first interrogation that lasted until 12.37 a.m. on 2 March 2009. The author claims that her son was not in a state to understand the seriousness of the proceedings, and that he was ill-treated and forced to confess that he owned the weapon of the crime and to participate in a reconstruction of the crime scene and incriminate himself. She also alleges that he was deprived of legal representation while the above actions took place, despite him requesting a lawyer. 2.2 The author’s son was arrested on 1 March 2009, but his detention on remand was ordered by a prosecutor only on 10 March 2009. The prosecutor ordered the detention without even meeting with the detainee. Mr. Zhuk was not brought before a judge for a review of his detention until 6 June 2009, three months and five days after his arrest. The author maintains that the above violates domestic criminal procedure laws 2 and her son’s rights under article 9, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, and refers to the jurisprudence of the Committee. 3 2.3 On 17 July 2009, the author’s son was found guilty under articles 139 (paras. 1, 12 and 15), 205 (part 2), 207 (part 3), 294 (part 3) and 328 (part 1) of the Criminal Code by the Criminal Division of the Minsk Regional Court and sentenced to death and confiscation of property. The author submits that her son’s right to presumption of innocence was violated because he was placed in a cage and handcuffed in the courtroom for the whole duration of the examination of his criminal case by the first instance court. In the author’s opinion, it shows that her son was treated as a dangerous criminal even before the verdict was handed down. In addition, State-run mass media, including the main television channel ONT, were referring to the author’s son as a “criminal” from the very start of the investigation. The author specifically mentions an interview with the Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr. 2 3 4 The author maintains that her son’s detention was in violation of articles 107 (para. 1), 108, (paras. 1 and 3), 111, 119 (para. 2) and 126 (para. 4) of the domestic Code of Criminal Procedure. The author refers to the Committee’s Views in communications No. 852/1999, Borisenko v. Hungary, Views adopted on 14 October 2002; and No. 521/1992, Kulomin v. Hungary, Views adopted on 16 March 1994; and to general comment No. 8 (1982) on the right to liberty and security of persons (Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirty-seventh Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/37/40), annex V).