CCPR/C/119/D/2146/2012 4.15 Furthermore, the authorities work to improve conditions of detention by building new detention centres in accordance with international standards. Accordingly, access to medical care and legal services has also been improving. The author has been provided with the full range of medical services that he needed and was able to have access to his lawyer. 4.16 Regarding the author’s claims of ineffective investigation of his claims of torture, the State party informs the Committee that the author did not submit any complaints during the criminal investigation. 8 As for the court hearings, the State party submits that, on 1 October 2009, the court heard the testimony of T.A, an investigator with the National Security Committee. The investigator testified that the author and the witnesses were never subjected to any kind of pressure or mistreatment. As is obvious from the records of the criminal investigation, the author and the witnesses were questioned in the presence of their respective lawyers. 4.17 The laws of Kazakhstan further provide for compensation for moral and material damage in the case of unlawful actions of the law enforcement agencies. 9 4.18 Regarding the author’s complaints about the length of his pretrial detention, the State party informs the Committee that the time spent by the author in detention was justified by the need to conduct various forensic examinations. In addition, on 13 April 2009, the author was additionally charged with crimes under article 233-1, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Code. 4.19 The State party examined the records of the trial hearings. It confirms that the author has asked for his detention to be changed to house arrest, citing his health issues. Upon inquiry initiated by the court, the administration of the detention centre told the court that the author had been receiving all necessary medical assistance. The court records also show that, on 22 October 2009, the author called an ambulance to the detention centre. The doctors, who arrived upon request, did not find it necessary to transport the author to a hospital. 4.20 Additionally, court records show that the head of Medical Unit No. 166/1 testified, when questioned as a witness, that upon arrival at the detention centre, the author was examined by several doctors. In addition to his disability, he was diagnosed with gastritis. Additionally, doctors confirmed that the author was suffering from bedsores, for which a treatment was prescribed.10 4.21 On 18 February 2011, a special medical commission refused to release the author. 11 The author argued that he could not get proper medical assistance in prison. The medical commission came to conclusion that the author’s condition was stable 12 and that he had been receiving the necessary medical care. In addition, the author was charged and sentenced for having committed a particularly serious crime. Moreover, when serving his sentence, the author was disciplined twice for violating internal rules and regulations. 4.22 In accordance with the applicable rules, the author has been granted seven family visits: three long and four short ones. He also received eight parcels containing various goods and items. The State party also submits that the author is able to practise his religion within the limitations of article 12, paragraph 5, of the Criminal Execution Code. 13 The author has never submitted any complaints regarding the prison administration. 4.23 Regarding the author’s right to be present during the appeal hearings, in accordance with article 408, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court has the discretion to request the presence of an appellant or not. An appellant is brought to court if 8 9 10 11 12 13 6 As mentioned by the State party before, the complaint of 21 October 2009 has been forwarded to the court for consideration. Chapter 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Kazakhstan. The State party mentions again here that the author filed 19 complaints during his pretrial detention, arguing aspects of his criminal case, but never complained about the conditions of his detention. The author’s request for release was based on his medical condition. The State party also notes that the author became disabled well before his criminal prosecution. “Religious practice is voluntary and should not interfere with the prison’s internal schedule or violate the rights of other prisoners.”