Advance unedited version CCPR/C/132/D/3038/2017 5.2 The author adds that the officers exerted physical and psychological pressure on him. His defence lawyer did not discuss with him privately, and did not provide the necessary judicial assistance, and he did not appeal against the detention and the use of physical or psychological pressure. The author is not a lawyer, and at the relevant time had no paper or pen to appeal. 5.3 The author claims that the State party’s contention that on 17 December 2013 he had been placed in the temporary detention facility in the context of on an administrative case is false and non-confirmed. According to the sentence, his term was calculated starting from 17 December 2013 but it was not stated that he had been arrested based on an administrative case. The author reiterates that he had been arrested on 12 December; he explains that his term was calculated starting as of 17 December only because on this day, he received the visit of criminal investigators from the city of Blagoveshensk and their visit has been duly recorded in the centre’s registry. This visit has most probably been recorded on video surveillance cameras; the author has requested the video recordings to be adduced to his appeal to the Tynda City Court, to no avail. 5.4 The sentences are unlawful as they were rendered in breach of the law. The author has not committed the crimes, he self-incriminated himself under pressure following his unlawful arrest and detention. Furthermore, the testimony of the witness P. to the effect that he was a cellmate of the author and the latter has admitted having committed the murders cannot be retained as lawful evidence. P. was also detained and kept under pressure by police. The author could not admit the murders, as he did not commit them. 5.5 In violation of article 14 (3)(e), the trial took place in the author’s absence and he could not confirm the violation of his rights during his arrest and detention at the temporary detention facility. In relation to the author, on 29 March 2016, a city prosecutor of Tynda introduced an administrative claim on the absence of natural light in the temporary detention facility. This claim has ultimately been rejected and even the prosecutor’s conclusions on the absence of light were not retained as evidence by the court, what shows that the court proceedings do not constitute an effective remedy. In addition, the courts ignored the conclusions of the office of the prosecutor regarding his unlawful detention in the temporary detention centre from 20 December 2013 to 15 January 2014. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5(2)(a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee notes that the State party challenges parts of the communication for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. First, the author has not appealed against the decision to have him placed in custody on 22 December 2013. Secondly, he has failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies regarding his claims of use of beatings (torture) or psychological pressure by the police to coerce him to confess guilt in a multiple murder. These allegations were not part of the author’s trial or initial appeal, but were only included in his complementary appeal. Later on, according to the documents on file, in his cassation appeal of 28 July 2016, the author invoked no allegation whatsoever related to acts of violence or psychological pressure by the police. 6.4 The Committee further notes that the author has not refuted these State party’s objections and has provided no explanation or information whatsoever in reply. For example, he has not explained why he had not raised such important claims as the use of torture or psychological pressure in his initial appeal, nor in his cassation appeal. The Committee further notes the State party’s submission that prior to his criminal case, the author was detained on administrative charges (para. 4.15 of the text above). In these circumstances, and in the absence of any further information or explanation on file, the Committee considers 9