CCPR/C/126/D/2306/2013 Procedure Code, when search and seizure cannot be postponed or delayed, in “exceptional circumstances” such actions can be conducted without a court warrant. 4.5 In such cases, the investigating officer files a notification with the relevant court and a prosecutor within 24 hours of conducting an unauthorized search. The court, upon receiving such a notification, examines the lawfulness of the actions in question and issues a decision. If the search is considered unlawful, the evidence obtained as a result is inadmissible in court, in accordance with article 75 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On 31 August 2010, between 8.30 p.m. and 9.30 p.m. a decision was taken by the investigative officer that in the circumstances, a search could not be delayed and the author’s house was searched. The author himself and two witnesses were present during the search. The author was presented with the decision to conduct the search, and had his rights to legal defence and against self-incrimination explained to him. As is clear from the records, the author refused legal assistance. 4.6 In accordance with article 52 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the suspected or accused person has a right to refuse legal assistance at any time during an investigation. Such a right is given only to the suspected or accused himself or herself and must be formalized in a written form. If such a refusal is announced during the investigative action, the investigative officer must so indicate in the records. On 1 September 2010, the investigator informed a judge of the Spassky district court of the search and on 2 September, the judge declared that the search that was carried out on 31 August was valid. 4.7 The Covenant prescribes that everyone has the right to examine witnesses and to obtain the attendance of witnesses on his or her behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him. Based on the records of his questioning, witness V.V., who was at the time an officer dealing with crimes related to narcotic substances, explained that he was taking part in an investigation which involved “test purchases”. He stated that on 14 July 2010, he and his partner, E.A., purchased a narcotic substance from a person who called himself Viktor. V.V. was dismissed from the police on 11 May 2011. He failed to appear during the court hearing scheduled for 13 May, 1 and 30 August and 16 and 27 September 2011. The court hearings were therefore postponed and additional measures to secure the presence of the witness were ordered. However, V.V. could not be found. 4.8 In accordance with article 281 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, with the agreement of both the defendant and the prosecutor, the testimonies of witnesses or victims can be read out in court, if the presence of the said witness or victim cannot be secured. On 11 October 2011, the court asked whether there were any objections to the testimony of V.V. being read out in court. No objections were voiced and the testimony was read out. The author and his lawyer did not file any objections. Moreover, the author and his lawyer posed questions to E.A., who had taken part in the “test purchases”, to another officer, S.A., and to a witness, R.K. 4.9 After the initial search, the author was questioned as a suspect, in the presence of a lawyer, and during this interrogation, he admitted that on 14 July 2010, he had dealt with a narcotic substance. He did not indicate, however, that the police officers had used violence or threats against him. 4.10 In his complaint to the Committee, the author claims that he was charged on 9 September 2010 and during his interrogation he informed the investigating officers that he had confessed under pressure, his relatives had been threatened and he had never dealt with any drugs nor given them to anyone. The records, however, indicate that the author was charged on 10 September 2010, that his lawyer was present during this meeting and there is no information regarding mistreatment of the author. During his interrogation, the author fully admitted his guilt. During an interrogation on 26 October 2010, the author admitted that he had sold drugs to someone for money. During another interrogation on 16 February 2011, he confirmed his earlier statements. All records were signed by the author and his lawyer. 4.11 During questioning in court (minutes of the court hearings of 13 May 2011), the author also admitted his guilt. The State party therefore submits that there were no violations of the author’s rights under the Covenant. 4