CCPR/C/127/D/2431/2014 3.7 The author also claims that the appeal court rejected his motion to re-examine the witnesses K. and H.Y., in violation of article 14 (3) (e) of the Covenant. 3.8 Finally, with reference to article 26 of the Covenant, the author claims that the facts as submitted reveal that he was subjected to political persecution due to his active participation in the social and political life of Kazakhstan. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In notes verbales dated 7 January and 2 June 2015, the State party provided its observations on admissibility and the merits. The State party submits that the author is a member of the “Azat” party and that he organized a hunger strike with five other people in October 2009 and an unauthorized public protest in the city of Aktobe on 30 January 2010. For the latter, the author was sentenced to 10 days of administrative arrest, for violation of the order regarding the organization of public events. According to the information received from a neuropsychiatric clinic in Aktobe dated 4 June 2010, the author underwent treatment in that clinic in 1998.7 In 2003, the author was charged in a criminal case, but was declared to be “insane”8 at the time. In 2010, the author underwent another examination and was declared to be sane. 4.2 The State party submits that the author has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The author complains to the Committee that the police officers acted unlawfully during the arrest, causing him to suffer bruises and abrasions. The author also seems to disagree with the court verdict and sentence of two years of imprisonment imposed on him by Aktobe Court No. 2 on 16 July 2010. The author’s complaint can be deemed admissible, but it should be considered without merit. The author was sentenced according to a lawful court order. 4.3 On 27 May 2010, while the author was walking in the city of Aktobe, he and M.M. bumped shoulders. Due to this insignificant incident, the author grabbed M.M.’s mobile phone and hit him in the face, causing him light bodily injury. The author kept striking M.M. Police arrived at the scene and tried to arrest the author, who resisted the lawful actions of the officers. In the process, the author hit one of the officers in the face and damaged another officer’s shirt. 4.4 On 27 May 2010, the author was charged under article 257 (1) (hooliganism) of the Criminal Code. Later on, the article under which the charges were laid was changed to article 257 (2) (b) (aggravated hooliganism using violence), due to the fact that the author resisted arrest. The police officers testified that they tried to stop the author, but he actively resisted and attempted “to hurt himself” and started shouting “that he was being beaten by police officers”. Other witnesses, such as the resident of a nearby apartment block, H.Y., confirmed the testimony of the victim, M.M. Specifically, H.Y. testified that he was home on 27 May 2010 and that, when he walked onto his balcony, he heard someone crying for help. He saw the author handcuffed and resisting arrest by police officers. At some point, he observed that the author had calmed down and was smoking a cigarette. Police officers conducted themselves politely. 4.5 The author refused to testify and to sign any documents during the investigation. He requested that the investigator, G.E. be removed from the case, claiming that the latter was biased against him. G.E. himself testified that he never instructed any witnesses to testify in a particular way. The author was provided with legal assistance in a timely fashion. The author’s request to remove G.E. from the case was rejected as he failed to provide sufficient 7 8 4 claims that these pieces of evidence were obtained in violation of the law. Furthermore, the court rejected his request for an additional examination of the crime scene (the courtyard), by the court; the author claimed that the investigation had examined it only partially and that the examination of the entire courtyard could have proven that one of the policemen could not have seen the fight from the spot he had indicated. The court also discarded the author’s request to review the video recording of the incident, showing that M.M. had no injuries, that the policeman’s shirt was not damaged and that the author was the only person injured in the video. No further details are provided. No further details are provided – what the charges were, whether they were dropped, etc.