CCPR/C/128/D/2368/2014 5.6 The author further notes the State party’s objection that on 12 April 2002 he was informed about his right to defence. He notes that the State party has not reacted to his claim of having been detained on 1 March 2002, and tortured, in the absence of a lawyer. He claims that he never refused the services of his lawyer, B.A.B., and that he never requested a new lawyer. In addition, the authorities of the State party actively prevented his lawyer from speaking to him from 25 December 2003 to 3 February 2004. This was done in order to make sure that the author could not file any complaints about the conduct of the investigation. 5.7 As for the State party’s objection that the author’s rights of appeal were respected, the author notes that he requested a new lawyer, S.P.E., to represent him in cassation before the Supreme Court. He also requested to be present during the hearings. On 28 April 2007, he received a decision of Judge Korotkikh refusing his presence during the hearings. On 4 August 2007, the Supreme Court confirmed the author’s verdict and sentence, in his absence. 5.8 The Supreme Court ignored the fact that the author’s conviction had been based on testimony from other defendants who had later retracted their testimonies saying that they had been obtained under duress. For example, the defendant Mr. Grigoryev stated that he had been tortured and forced to testify against the author, but this had been ignored by the court. The State party should have discontinued the proceedings against the author at that time, and sent the case for new investigation. 5.9 The author submits that in Ukraine, the death penalty was indeed abolished by the Constitutional Court on 29 December 1999. A law dated 22 February 2000 introduced life imprisonment, but without mandating that the death penalty should necessarily be replaced by life imprisonment. In the meantime, the maximum sentence for any crime was up to 15 years of imprisonment. This means that for crimes committed up until 29 December 1999, the maximum sentence should have been 15 years of imprisonment. Even with the adoption of the new sentence of life imprisonment, the maximum sentence for crimes committed before this date should not exceed 15 years. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee takes note of the claim that the author has exhausted all available effective domestic remedies. In the absence of any objection by the State party in this connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 6.4 The Committee has noted the author’s rather general claims under articles 16 and 26 of the Covenant. In the absence of any further pertinent information on file, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate, for the purposes of admissibility, these allegations. Accordingly, it declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 The Committee has considered the author’s contention that his rights under article 15 of the Covenant were also violated when the authorities of the State party abolished the death penalty and instead imposed a sentence of life imprisonment on him. In the absence of any further pertinent information on the file, and considering the Committee’s previous jurisprudence 15 on the subject, the Committee considers that the author has failed to 15 6 See the Committee’s Views in Tofanyuk v. Ukraine (CCPR/C/100/D/1346/2005), para. 11.3.