CCPR/C/132/D/3038/2017 Advance unedited version an accused on 16 October 2014, where he explained in what circumstances he had committed the crimes. He gave additional information on the circumstances of the murders during the verification at the crime scene, on 22 December 2013 and 27 May 2014. 4.21 When assessing the author’s guilt, the court examined his deposition as a suspect on 16 October 2014 and the verification of the deposition at the crime scene, recognised them as admissible evidence of his guilt under article 105 CC as they were received in accordance with the law, including with the explanation that the author had the right not to testify against himself, and that they were given in the presence of a lawyer. No complaints regarding an unlawful pressure were received. The court also gave an assessment of the author’s confessions and noted that they were corroborated by the additional expert’s examination No 211 and the data contained in the record regarding the examination of the crime scene of 8 December 2013. 4.22 When calculating the author’s penalty, the court took into consideration his arrest from 17 December 2013. When appealing his conviction of 5 May 2015 by the Amursk Regional Court, the author affirmed having been arrested on 17 December 2013 and he complained that the record on his arrest has only been prepared on 20 December 2013; he also claimed that his confessions were made under psychological and physical pressure by the police. 4.23 On 11 August 2015, the Collegium on criminal cases of the Supreme Court examined the claims of the appellant and concluded that the guilt of the author was confirmed by the multitude of the evidence examined during the trial that have been given an adequate assessment in the sentence. The author’s responses that were given when he was interrogated during the investigation were considered truthful, when he gave a detailed description of the way he murdered four persons. The author confirmed his deposition during a verification at the crime scene but also in court, when he clarified the sequence of the murder and the place from where he collected the axe. 4.24 The court also correctly retained as evidence the deposition of the witness P., who confirmed that the author - his cellmate during his administrative arrest - described to him how he had murdered four people and that he had informed the police of this. The author had not complained to him of having been coerced to do so. In court, the author confirmed the deposition of P. Another witness, D., has confirmed that when P. asked the author who had committed the murder of 4 people, the author replied that it was him. 4.25 The author’s allegations about his forced confessions were duly examined by the court, but were rejected as groundless. The court took note in particular of the fact that the confessions were made in the presence of a lawyer, after the author had been informed of his procedural rights including the right not to testify against himself; he did not complain about the police during the investigation, and from the witnesses’ depositions it transpires that he had confessed guilt voluntarily. From the sentence, it transpires that the author’s guilt was confirmed not only by his depositions, but also by a multitude of other corroborating evidence, permitting to make a grounded conclusion of his guilt. In his appeals against the Amursk Regional Court of 5 May 2015 and the ruling of the Supreme Court of 11 August 2015, the author claimed that he had been arrested on 12 December and not on 17 December 2013, but made no claim of unlawful methods of investigation or forced confessions. 4.26 The author has also complained to court against the Ministry of Finance and the Temporary detention centre of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, claiming moral damages for his unlawful detention. In support, he claimed that on 12 December 2013, he has been placed unlawfully in the Temporary Detention Centre as no record for his arrest as suspect has been prepared. In addition, he has not been informed of his procedural rights and was given no possibility to conclude a representation agreement with a lawyer. The conditions of detention did not correspond to the sanitary and other standards. These circumstances led to physical and moral sufferings by the author. The author asked the court to conclude to the unlawfulness of his detention and to order a compensation equal to 10 000 000 roubles. 4.27 The State party submits that on 9 March 2016, the Tynda District Court accepted the case and determined the 12 April 2016 as date of adjudication and the author has been informed accordingly. Later on, the trial has been postponed to 24 May 2016 and the author 6