CCPR/C/126/D/2356/2014 2.8 Mr. Ismanov was also denied the time to meet with his family on a number of occasions, in addition to the periods of time during which the authorities ignored his family’s requests regarding his whereabouts. For example, Ms. Nazhmutdinova saw him on 20 November 2010, but only for two minutes, in the presence of police officers. On 19 February 2011, she was able to meet with him in private. During this meeting, Mr. Ismanov provided additional details of torture. He told her that he had been electrocuted, including to his genitalia, that hot and cold water had been dumped over his head, that he had been beaten on his legs and the soles of his feet, that he had been left outside in the cold and that he had been threatened with being shot in the head. 2.9 The authors contend that Mr. Ismanov’s lawyer filed several petitions during the court hearings. At the beginning of the trial, the hearings were open1 but, on 9 August 2011, the prosecutor requested that the court close the hearings in the “interests of the security and safety of the participants in the process, including witnesses”. The authors claim that this was done to prevent the public from learning about the facts of the torture suffered by the defendants. 2.10 Other defendants, along with Mr. Ismanov, openly stated that they had been tortured, but the court disregarded their statements. Mr. Ismanov stated that, between 3 and 10 November 2010, he had been tortured by a police officer, A.S. The court questioned this officer, who stated that, during the time in question, he had been on leave. The court requested official proof that he had been on leave, and then never completed its consideration of the issue. The exchange and questioning were not reflected in the trial transcript. 2.11 During the cassation appeal, the court did not allow international organizations and human rights defenders to observe the hearings. Again, the lawyers filed numerous petitions to document the instances of torture and to prove their clients were forced to confess his guilt. The court rejected these petitions. Mr. Ismanov also complained about unlawful detention upon initial arrest, and claimed that during such detention, he had been tortured. However, these claims were dismissed. On 2 November 2012, the Supreme Court rejected Mr. Ismanov’s cassation appeal. The authors therefore contend that they have exhausted all available domestic remedies. The complaint 3.1 The authors claim that Mr. Ismanov was subjected to torture and mistreatment, in violation of his rights under articles 7 and 10 (1) of the Covenant. They claim that he was also denied proper health care and held incommunicado from 3 to 5 November 2010, 6 to 12 November 2010 and 12 to 19 November 2010, in violation of his rights under article 7 of the Covenant.2 3.2 The authors claim that, although Mr. Ismanov was detained on 3 November 2010, his detention was not registered until 10 November 2010 and he was only brought before a judge on 12 November 2010. Also, he was not, at the time of his arrest, informed of the charges against him. The authors also contend that the court never considered the question of whether his detention continued to be lawful, despite complaints about torture and the conditions of detention. All these factors, according to the authors, amount to a violation of Mr. Ismanov’s rights under article 9 (1)–(4) of the Covenant. 3.3 Mr. Ismanov contends that the conditions of his pretrial detention, including lack of proper medical care, amounted to a violation of article 10 (1) of the Covenant. The authors also claim that Mr. Ismanov’s rights under article 14 (1) of the Covenant have been violated by holding closed trial hearings. The court was not an independent tribunal and it rejected numerous petitions and requests from lawyers. It also ignored many claims regarding torture and mistreatment. 1 2 The authors submit that, while the court hearings were initially “public”, the court limited the number of relatives for all defendants to 25, and did not allow the presence of either international organizations or the mass media. Mr. Ismanov refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence in McCallum v. South Africa (CCPR/C/100/D/1818/2008). 3