10.7 With regard to the failure of the Court to provide Mr. Domukovsky with an indictment in Russian, the State party explains that the court established that Mr. Domukovsky had a perfect command of Georgian. In this context, it is submitted that he gave evidence in Georgian during the preliminary investigations and did not ask for an interpreter. According to the State party, Mr. Domukovsky read over the depositions in Georgian and signed them as accurate, drew up his own statements in Georgian and stated in the records that Georgian was his native language. In the light of the above, the Court considered his demand for an indictment in Russian to be a delaying tactic. sentence against Messrs. Dokvadze and Gelbakhiani while their communication was under consideration by the Committee. State party's submission on the merits and authors' comments 10.1 By submission of 21 February 1997, the State party provides observations concerning the merits of the communication. The case of Mr. Viktor P. Domukovsky 10.2 With regard to Mr. Domukovsky, the State party explains that he was sentenced to fourteen years' imprisonment, for banditry, preparation of terrorist acts and diversionary acts for the purpose of weakening the Republic of Georgia. 10.8 The State party submits that after the preliminary investigation, Mr. Domukovsky and his counsel went over all the material assembled. In none of their applications they asked to be granted access to additional material nor claimed that they had not been provided with all the material. Before the beginning of the trial, Mr. Domukovsky requested an opportunity to go over the files once more. This request was granted by the court. It is submitted that Mr. Domukovsky studied the files from 13 October 1993 to 6 January 1994. 10.3 The State party submits that Mr. Domukovsky and Mr. Gelbakhiani were legally detained in Azerbaijan by virtue of an agreement between the relevant Georgian and Azerbaijan ministries, which provides for the tracing and detention of suspects who go into hiding in either State. They were detained, on 6 April 1993, on the basis of an arrest warrant, issued by the Government prosecutor on 30 September 1992. 10.9 The State party submits that Mr. Domukovsky and his co-accused had an unrestricted right to defence throughout the preliminary investigation and the judicial enquiry. They were afforded the opportunity to select their own counsel. For this purpose, the court summoned members of the defendants' families and gave them an opportunity to meet with the defendants repeatedly in order to decide on the lawyers which they wanted to call in. 10.4 The State party denies that Mr. Domukovsky enjoyed parliamentary immunity at the time of his arrest. It explains that a newly elected Parliament was in office at the time he was detained, and as a member of the former Supreme Soviet he no longer enjoyed immunity. 10.5 The State party submits that Mr. Domukovsky's claims of physical violence and mental duress during the preliminary investigation were not substantiated in judicial examination. The Court came to its conclusion because neither the accused nor his counsel - in whose presence he was interrogated - made any mention of such violence. Moreover, the case files assembled by the investigation team also contained records in which Mr. Domukovsky denied responsibility for a number of incidents. The Court concluded that this would not have occurred if the investigation had been conducted unfairly. 10.10 The State party submits that one of the objectives of the defendants was to delay the consideration of the case and to disrupt the procedures of the court. It explains that, after Domukovsky's counsel had withdrawn from the case, he and his family were allowed the time prescribed by law to find a new lawyer. Since they had not appointed anyone once the time expired, the Court appointed a lawyer, who was given a month and a half to acquaint himself with the case. During this period proceedings were suspended. When the trial resumed, Domukovsky rejected this lawyer, according to the State party without valid grounds, and threatened him. The counsel then withdrew, after which the court decided that he had abused his right to defence and the case was concluded without counsel for Domukovsky in attendance. 10.6 Concerning the incident of 13 August 1995, the State party submits that, upon a statement from Mr. Domukovsky to the court on 15 August, the medical service at the remand block was instructed to examine him. He was examined on 17 August according to the record of the examination. As paraphrased by the State party, his body bore no more marks of injury and his health was found to be satisfactory. It was not substantiated that he had been beaten. No copy of the record has been provided. 10.11 The State party explains that Mr. Domukovsky and other of the accused regularly disrupted the proceedings during the judicial hearings, showing disrespect to the court, ignoring the instructions from the chairman and preventing the court to go about its normal work. It submits that 145