CCPR/C/112/D/1906/2009 8.4 The Committee further notes the author’s allegations that he was not able to crossexamine a key witnesses during the court hearings and that, overall, about 30 witnesses failed to appear and testify, both for the prosecution and the defence. The author further claims that he was not able to question his brother, S.L., who was interrogated during the pretrial investigation, but failed to appear in court. The author was therefore unable to cross-examine that witness too. The author further submits that one of the witnesses might have presented, if questioned, exculpatory evidence. In that connection, the Committee recalls its general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, according to which, the right to obtain the attendance of the witnesses by the accused or their counsel is not unlimited, but that there should be a “proper opportunity to question and challenge witnesses against them at some stage of proceedings”. The Committee considers that the failure to make a key witness, S.L., available for cross-examination, as well as the absence of 30 additional witnesses during the court hearings affected the fairness of the author’s trial. In those circumstances and in the absence of any response from the State party, the Committee finds that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (e), of the Covenant. 8.5 The Committee notes the author’s allegation that his rights under article 14, paragraph 1, were violated. It also notes that this allegation has not been not refuted by the State party. In the light of the Committee’s findings that the State party failed to comply with the guarantees of a fair trial under article 14, paragraph 3 (e) and (g), of the Covenant, the Committee is of the view that Mr. Yuzepchuk’s trial suffered from irregularities which, taken as a whole, amount to a violation of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. 8.6 The author further claims a violation of his right to life under article 6 of the Covenant, since he was sentenced to death after an unfair trial. The Committee notes that the State party has argued, with reference to article 6, paragraph 2, of the Covenant, that Mr. Yuzepchuk was sentenced to death for having committed serious crimes following the judgement handed down by the courts, in accordance with the Constitution, the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure of Belarus, and that the imposition of the death penalty was not contrary to the Covenant. In that respect, the Committee recalls its general comment No. 6 (1982) on the right to life, in which it noted that the provision that a sentence of death may be imposed only in accordance with the law and not contrary to the provisions of the Covenant, implies that “the procedural guarantees therein prescribed must be observed, including the right to a fair hearing by an independent tribunal, the presumption of innocence, the minimum guarantees for the defence, and the right to review by a higher tribunal”.19 In the same context, the Committee reiterates its jurisprudence that the imposition of a sentence of death upon conclusion of a trial in which the provisions of article 14 of the Covenant have not been respected constitutes a violation of article 6 of the Covenant.20 In the light of the Committee’s findings of a violation of article 14, paragraphs 1 and 3 (e) and (g), of the Covenant, it concludes that the final sentence of death and subsequent execution of Mr. Yuzepchuk did not meet the requirements of article 14 and that, as a result, his right to life under article 6 of the Covenant has been violated. 9. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of 19 20 10 See also communication No. 253/1987, Kelly v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 8 April 1991, para. 5.14. See general comment No. 32, para. 59; and communications No. 719/1996, Levy v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 3 November 1998, para. 7.3; No. 1096/2002, Kurbanov v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on 6 November 2003, para. 7.7; No. 1044/2002, Shukurova v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on 17 March 2006, para. 8.6; No. 1276/2004, Idieva v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on 31 March 2009, para. 9.7; No. 1304/2004, Khoroshenko v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 29 March 2011, para. 9.11; and No. 1545/2007, Gunan v. Kyrgyzstan, Views adopted on 25 July 2011, para. 6.5.