CCPR/C/119/D/2146/2012 of three months on the ground that the proceedings could not be completed on time due to the results of forensic examinations being delayed. Although he challenged this decision, the Astana City Court upheld it on 29 April 2009, without deciding on the issue of the lawfulness of his arrest. The pretrial investigation was delayed by the authorities and as a result he spent 11 months in pretrial detention, in violation of his right to be tried without undue delay. 3.3 The author also claims a violation of article 10 of the Covenant. He was subjected to ill-treatment and his requests for medical assistance were repeatedly rejected. The detention conditions are not adapted to the special needs of a person with disability and his health has deteriorated further. 3.4 He claims that his rights under article 14 have been violated. He submits that the courts failed to respect the principles of impartiality and equality of arms. Moreover, upon his arrest, he was treated by the officers of the Kazakhstan National Security Committee as a criminal, in violation of his right to a presumption of innocence. He was also prevented from adequately defending himself. Owing to the failure of his lawyer to defend him effectively, he refused his services and requested the court to appoint another lawyer. 3.5 The author also submits that his rights under article 18 have been violated. He was convicted for constituting a terrorist group on the basis of religious texts and other documents that were found in his possession. He claims that they were planted in his apartment by officers of the National Security Committee. Moreover, during his transfer to Astana, Kazakhstan, officers were drinking alcohol and eating pork, inviting him to join. They used abusive language about him and his religion. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 26 June 2012 and 8 November 2012, the State party provided its observations on admissibility and the merits. The State party challenged the admissibility of the communication for several reasons. 4.2 Firstly, the State party contends that the ratione temporis principle should prevent the Committee from examining the case in the first place. The State party’s obligations under the Optional Protocol came into force on 30 September 2009, and the allegations submitted by the author occurred before that date. 4.3 The author’s contention that the torture was continuing as of the date of the submission of the complaint and the allegations of torture by several police officers of the National Security Committee for the Atyrau region have been examined by the State party and could not be confirmed. Therefore, this part of the communication should be declared inadmissible. 4.4 Secondly, the author has failed to exhaust all domestic remedies. The author was detained on 9 January 2009 in Nalchik in the Russian Federation. He was extradited to Kazakhstan, where he was wanted for committing several crimes, including operating a terrorist organization and committing illegal armed acts. The author was formally charged on 7 February 2009 and placed in pretrial detention. On 2 April 2009, his detention was extended until 7 May 2009. On 13 April 2009, the author was charged with additional crimes, including propaganda of terrorism or public calls to commit terrorist acts. The prosecutor’s office eventually sent his case to court on 30 June 2009. Meanwhile, all charges against the other defendants, C.H., A.B., G.R., B.E. and S.M., were dropped on the basis of article 65, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Code after they cooperated with the investigation. 4.5 The author has not been tortured or pressured to confess guilt. C.H., A.B., G.R., B.E. and S.M. provided evidence based on their own free will, in the presence of their lawyers, and the interrogations were videotaped. On 30 November 2009, the author was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment, to be served in a strict regime prison. 4.6 On 23 June, 14 July and 21 October 2009, the author complained to the prosecutor’s office regarding violation of his constitutional rights. His first two complaints did not contain any allegations of mistreatment. In accordance with the law, the prosecutor’s office sent all these complaints to the court. Furthermore, on 12 February 2010, the author’s 4