CCPR/C/128/D/2789/2016 his trial, which lacked due process guarantees and resulted in a death sentence, itself violated her father’s rights under article 6 (1) and (2) of the Covenant. 3.2 The author further claims that her father’s rights under article 9 (1)–(4) were violated, as during his apprehension he was not brought promptly before a judge after his initial arrest. Her father saw a judge for the first time in December 2015 as part of his criminal trial, more than 150 days after his arrest. Such a delay violated his rights under article 9 (3) of the Covenant. 3.3 The author claims a violation of her father’s rights under article 14 (1) of the Covenant. She claims that during the court proceedings the court was biased and failed to maintain objectivity. She submits that during the appeal trial the court was also biased, as it tolerated the prosecutor’s personal opinion expressed in relation to the case and in relation to the author’s father’s personality. 3.4 The author also claims that her father was placed on death row even before the court sentence had acquired the force of res judicata. Both before the trial court and the Supreme Court, her father was handcuffed and placed in a cage. The first-instance hearings were held in public in Vileika town and the way he was presented could lead the public to see him as a dangerous criminal. During the court hearing, the judge spoke out in a way that allowed observers to conclude that he was not impartial. During his cassation appeal, the author’s father had to wear special clothing for persons sentenced to death, marked with Russian letters indicating his sentence.3 In addition, he was brought to the court hearings by a convoy of six guards in the “head to knees” position, 4 which caused him suffering, increased blood pressure, dizziness and headaches. State media disregarded the presumption of innocence and disseminated distorted information against the author’s father. The media expressed a categorical opinion about the guilt of the author’s father before the court sentence had acquired the force of res judicata. The author claims, in addition, that after the first instance court handed down its decision, the attitude of the personnel of Detention Centre No. 1, where her father had been placed, towards her father became humiliating. He was subjected to verbal mockery and psychological pressure. The author claims that this violated her father’s right to be presumed innocent under article 14 (2) of the Covenant. 3.5 The author also claims a violation of her father’s rights under article 14 (3) (a) of the Covenant, as he was not informed promptly of the nature and cause of the charges against him. The author submits that her father was detained on 28 July 2015 at 8.35 p.m., while the investigator drew up a detention record after 2.45 a.m. (29 July), that is, more than six hours after the arrest. Moreover, the record did not indicate when her father was informed about its contents. 3.6 Further, the author claims that her father was not offered sufficient time to prepare his defence, and that his access to his lawyer was limited, in violation of his rights under article 14 (3) (b) and (d) of the Covenant. He was not informed promptly after his arrest about his rights, including about his right to counsel. He was provided with an ex officio counsel only at 2.05 a.m., 29 July 2015, nearly six hours after the arrest.5 In the meantime, several procedural steps had already been taken. He had been interrogated and subjected to psychological pressure and attempts to persuade him to confess.6 The author’s father did not feel well during the interrogation since he was not yet sober, and he was not able to understand what was going on. Moreover, he was not provided time to meet his attorney in private. At the cassation appeal stage, the author’s father was also not able to meet his counsel under conditions of confidentiality, as the prison administration was always present. As a result, he was not able to add additional information to his cassation appeal. In addition, the power of attorney he sent authorizing his representation before the Committee 3 4 5 6 The letters were an abbreviation for “exceptional measure of punishment”. A position in which the person’s head is placed below the level of the thighs. Counsel chosen by the author’s father was hired only at the cassation appeal stage. The author claims that the record of the interrogation conducted on 29 July 2015 reflects only two hours of inquiry actions, which indicates that some of the procedures were conducted after his arrest during the night. 3