CCPR/C/112/D/2069/2011 the video that was shown to the People’s Council, in which Mr. Shikhmuradov allegedly appeared to be under the influence of “mind-altering” drugs. In these circumstances, considering Mr. Shikhmuradov’s medical condition before the arrest and in the absence of information from the State party that would contradict the aforementioned, the Committee concludes that due weight must be given to the author’s allegations. Accordingly, it concludes that the facts as presented reveal a violation of article 7 of the Covenant with respect to the author’s husband. 6.5 Regarding the claim that Mr. Shikhmuradov’s imprisonment since his conviction violated article 9, the Committee notes the author’s claims that he has been held incommunicado in an unknown location without access to counsel and without the opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. In the absence of any information from the State party in that regard, the Committee considers that due weight must be given to the author’s allegations. Accordingly, it concludes that the facts as presented reveal a violation of article 9 of the Covenant with respect to the author’s husband. 6.6 With respect to the author’s claims under article 14, the Committee notes that Mr. Shikhmuradov was sentenced first to 25 years of imprisonment, and that his trial was held on 29 December 2002, only four days after his arrest. The court hearing, according to the author, was not open to public, and lasted only one day, and the conviction was based solely on Mr. Shikhmuradov’s forced confession. The Committee further notes that, after a separate and closed hearing the next day, on 30 December 2002, the People’s Council sentenced Mr. Shikhmuradov to life imprisonment. The Committee notes the author’s allegations that Mr. Shikhmuradov did not have sufficient time to prepare for his defence, could not consult his lawyers, and did not have an opportunity to have his conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law. The Committee recalls that the Covenant gives everyone the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law, and that equality of arms is an indispensable aspect of the fair trial principle.8 The Committee notes the author’s uncontested claim that the People’s Council, a political body led by the President and including members of the Parliament and cabinet ministers, cannot be considered as a competent, independent and impartial tribunal, within the meaning and requirements of article 14, paragraph 1. In the absence of any information from the State party in that regard, the Committee considers that due weight must be given to the author’s allegations. Accordingly, it concludes that the trial and the final conviction of Mr. Shikhmuradov in the circumstances described disclose a violation of article 14, paragraphs 1 and 5, of the Covenant. 6.7 In respect of article 15, paragraph 1, the Committee takes note of the author’s allegations that the State party’s authorities imposed a heavier penalty than that which was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed. The Committee notes the author’s uncontested statement that the heaviest penalty under Turkmen law at the time of the alleged crimes was 25 years, in accordance with the Criminal Code of Turkmenistan that was then in force. The Committee also notes that life imprisonment as a penalty was enacted by the People’s Council only after Mr. Shikhmuradov’s conviction. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the facts before it constitute a violation of Mr. Shikhmuradov’s rights under article 15, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. 6.8 With regard to the author, the Committee notes the anguish and distress caused by the incommunicado detention and disappearance of her husband. Recalling its jurisprudence, the Committee concludes that the facts before it reveal a violation of article 7 8 8 See, for example, communication No. 307/1988, Campbell v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 24 March 1993, para. 6.4.