CCPR/C/112/D/1972/2010 the case Humbatov v. Azerbaijan,12 where the Court found a similar complaint manifestly ill-founded. The State party concludes that the commutation of the sentence is legal under national and international law and that it guarantees the constitutional right to life. Author’s comments on the State party’s submission 7.1 On 4 December 2012, the author submits that the charges against him in the initial verdict, punishable by death penalty, were murder and banditry. He reiterates that the initial verdict against him had been pronounced after Azerbaijan had declared independence and in violation of article 15 of the Constitutional Act, which prohibits the application of any foreign law on the territory of Azerbaijan. According to international law that does not exclude his being held accountable for the offences committed outside Azerbaijan, but the above offences should have been re-qualified under the provisions of the domestic legislation. If the legislation of the State where the offence had been committed provides a lighter punishment, that should also have been taken into consideration. At present, banditry is not punishable by death or by life imprisonment either in the Russian Federation or in Georgia.13 The author further partially reiterates his submission regarding the violation of his rights under article 15 of the Covenant. 7.2 The author further notes that the State party had confirmed that he and other defendants had been removed from the courtroom for a period of four months and maintains that the above violated his “procedural rights” guaranteed by the 1960 Code. He maintains that the participation in the proceedings of his defence attorney could not completely replace his own participation. The author refers to the jurisprudence of the European Court that the defendant in first instance proceedings has the right to be present at the proceeding.14 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 8.2 The Committee notes that the author’s application to the European Court of Human Rights had been rejected, on 28 November 2008, by a committee of three judges as inadmissible on the basis of articles 34 and 35 of the Convention. The Committee has therefore ascertained, as required under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee notes the author’s allegations that there were violations of his rights under article 14 (paras. 1 and 3 (d)) of the Covenant during the first instance trial and that the conditions of detention in the Bayil prison violated his rights under articles 7 and 10 12 13 14 European Court of Human Rights (First Section), Decision as to the admissibility of applications Nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04 of 18 May 2006. The author refers to similar cases in the Russian Federation and in Georgia, where individuals convicted of similar crimes had been sentenced to different terms of imprisonment, but not to life. The author refers to Ekbatani v. Sweden, application No. 10563/83, judgement of 26 May 1988, para. 25; Cooke v. Austria, application No. 25878/94, judgement of 8 February 2000, para. 42; Kremzow v. Austria, application No. 12350/86, judgement of 21 September 1993; and to the Committee’s jurisprudence in Morael v. France, communication No. 207/1986, Views adopted on 28 July 1989, para. 9.3. 11