1992, he was taken from his mother's flat to the KGB for 'conversation'. His family was not informed of his whereabouts. On 17 August 1992, the head of the KGB, Mr. Batiashvili, appeared on national television and announced his resignation, because of the maltreatment of Mr. Tsiklauri. 12.2 The State party submits that a warrant for Mr. Tsiklauri's arrest was issued on 1 August 1993, and he was arrested on 7 August 1993. According to the State party, he was not covered by the declaration of amnesty of the State Council, since that only applied to those involved in the assault on and occupation of the Georgian Radio and Television building in Tbilisi on 24 June 1992. 13.2 Mr. Tsiklauri maintains that he saw his arrest warrant only a year after his arrest when the preliminary investigation was coming to an end and he was handed the materials of his case. He claims that the information in the warrant, which was dated 1 August 1992, such as date of birth, address and marital status, did not coincide with the real state of affairs. He further states that the warrant was for actively participating in preparation of the military coup of 24 June 1992, and for keeping weapons and explosive materials. He states that, according to the material in the case file, the official charges against him date from 20 August 1992, and do not correspond to those mentioned in the warrant. 12.3 The State party submits that the court did not accept Mr. Tsiklauri's claim that he had been subjected to physical and mental duress during the preliminary investigation, since neither Mr. Tsiklauri nor his lawyer had mentioned this during the investigations. The interrogations were conducted in the presence of a lawyer and Mr. Tsiklauri wrote his confessions in his own hand and signed the records of the interrogations as adequate. Furthermore, the State party submits that during his detention Mr. Tsiklauri was visited by representatives of international organizations, to whom he did not affirm that he had been put under any kind of pressure. Moreover, the Prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings in connection with Mr. Tsiklauri's injuries and a full inquiry was held, but the case had to be dropped for lack of evidence. According to the State party, it was established that he had leaped from a vehicle that had transported him. 13.3 He maintains that the crimes he was charged with, of which he denies any knowledge, were covered by the amnesty of 3 August 1992, which read, according to him:” ...10. Proceeding from the supreme interests of unity and concord, persons who have taken part in the actions against the authorities of the Georgian republic since January 6 of the current year shall be freed from criminal charges as long as they have not committed serious crimes against peaceful population... 12. The participants of the adventurist coup attempt on 24 July 1992 shall be exempted from criminal charges committed by them against the country and people.” Mr. Tsiklauri thus confirms that the charges against him were covered by the amnesty. 12.4 The State party submits that Mr. Tsiklauri was given a copy of the indictment in accordance with the law. Once the preliminary investigation was over, Mr. Tsiklauri and the other accused, together with their lawyers went over the files. The State party notes that the applications submitted did not mention the need to consult additional material. Before the trial, Mr. Tsiklauri requested to consult the case files, and the court agreed and made files and records such as were available at the time accessible from 13 October 1993 to 6 January 1994. Trial proceedings were suspended for this period. 13.4 Mr. Tsiklauri denies that his injuries were caused by falling out of a car. He states that the investigation into the cause of the injuries was done by the same people who were investigating the criminal charges against him. He denies that he ever tried to escape by jumping off a car, and states that it is a lie that he burned a third of his body by dropping hot tea he was drinking. He further states that this could easily have been established if there would have been a court hearing into his case. 12.5 The State party maintains that Mr. Tsiklauri enjoyed an unrestricted right to defence throughout the preliminary investigation and the judicial enquiry. He was afforded the opportunity to select his own counsel. Mr. Tsiklauri chose to be defended by T. Nizharadze, from 21 September 1992 onwards. On 6 January 1994, he requested that his wife, N. Natsvlishvili, be admitted as additional defence counsel and be allowed to consult the case files. The court, considering this a deliberate attempt to delay the trial, denied the application and the trial continued with Nizharadze as defence counsel. 12.6 With regard to Mr. Tsiklauri's claim that the trial was held in his absence, the State party refers to its explanations in the case of Mr. Domukovsky (see para. 10.11) 13.5 Mr. Tsiklauri further states that, with exception of the confessions as a result of torture, all testimonies given during the presence of his lawyer deny guilt of the charges. He states that the court never bothered to check whether the testimonies in the preliminary investigation were indeed given by him. He further explains that, because he was not allowed to be present during the court hearings, he was unable to give testimony, interrogate witnesses and present the proofs of his innocence. 13.1 In his comments on the State party's submission, Mr. Tsiklauri states that on 7 August 13.6 He further challenges the State party's remark that he has never told representatives of international 148