CCPR/C/126/D/2356/2014 criminal group or criminal organization on 10 November 2010 (para. 4.3), and that his detention was approved by a court on 13 November 2010 (para. 4.4). He was thus held unlawfully during the dates in question, which resulted in “disciplinary measures” against two police officers. The State party failed, however, to respond to the authors’ remaining claims under article 9, namely that the authorities did not inform Mr. Ismanov about the reasons for his initial arrest, nor did they bring him promptly before a judge (paras. 2.3–2.4). 7.6 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, in which it refers to the prohibition on arbitrary and unlawful deprivations of liberty, i.e., deprivation of liberty that is not imposed on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law. The two prohibitions overlap, in that arrests or detentions may be in violation of the applicable law but not arbitrary, or legally permitted but arbitrary, or both arbitrary and unlawful. Arrest or detention that lacks any legal basis is also arbitrary.12 Article 9 also requires compliance with domestic rules that define when authorization to continue detention must be obtained from a judge or other officer, 13 where individuals may be detained,14 when the detained person must be brought to court 15 and the legal limits on the duration of detention. 16 Persons deprived of their liberty must be assisted in obtaining access to effective remedies to enforce their rights, including initial and periodic judicial review of the lawfulness of the detention, and to prevent conditions of detention that are incompatible with the Covenant. 17 7.7 In the present case, the Committee notes, based on the submissions by the parties, that Mr. Ismanov’s initial detention was both arbitrary and unlawful, as he was not informed, at the time, of the reasons for his arrest or of the charges against him, he was not brought promptly before a judge and he did not receive adequate remedies for the rights violated. In the circumstances as described, and in the absence of further relevant explanations by the State party, the Committee concludes that the State party violated Mr. Ismanov’s rights under article 9. 7.8 With respect to the authors’ claims under article 14 (1) regarding the right to a public hearing, the Committee notes the authors’ claims that the court hearings were closed as of 9 August 2011 because of an alleged concern for the safety and security of the participants in the process, including witnesses (para. 2.9). The Committee recalls the provisions of its general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, namely that all trials in criminal matters or related to a suit at law must in principle be conducted orally and publicly.18 Article 14 (1) acknowledges that courts have the power to exclude all or part of the public for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public) or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 19 The State party failed, however, to detail its security and safety concerns in the present case, nor did it list the measures taken to alleviate these concerns. The Committee therefore considers that the State party has not demonstrated why it was necessary in the present case to exclude the public from the proceedings. In the absence of further pertinent explanations on file, the Committee concludes that the State party applied a disproportionate restriction on Mr. Ismanov’s rights to a fair and public hearing, and therefore that his rights under article 14 (1) have been violated. 7.9 The Committee notes the time periods when the relatives and lawyer for Mr. Ismanov were not aware of his whereabouts (para. 2.3). The Committee also notes the authors’ claims that Mr. Ismanov was prevented from communicating with his lawyer and 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 8 General comment No. 35, para. 11. Gridin v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/69/D/770/1997), para. 8.1. Umarov v. Uzbekistan (CCPR/C/100/D/1449/2006), para. 8.4. Gómez Casafranca v. Peru (CCPR/C/78/D/981/2001), para. 7.2. Israil v. Kazakhstan (CCPR/C/103/D/2024/2011), para. 9.2. Fijalkowska v. Poland (CCPR/C/84/D/1061/2002), paras. 8.3–8.4; A v. New Zealand (CCPR/C/66/D/754/1997), para. 7.3; and general comment No. 31, para. 15. General comment No. 32, para. 28. Ibid., para. 29.