Advance unedited version CCPR/C/132/D/3038/2017 has been informed duly of the change.5 The case has been examined on 24 May 2016. The author was not present, he did not send his representative and made no requests or complaints. The court, acting under article 167 of the CCP, decided to proceed in the absence of the plaintiff who had been duly notified of the trial. The court examined the arguments by the author on the circumstances of his detention, in conjunction to the rest of the evidence on file, and established that on 20 December 2013, the author has been detained as a suspect of a crime proscribed under article 105 (2) CC. The author has been notified of the arrest and he accepted it as confirmed by a hand written signed statement. Under article 46 CPC, the author has been explained his procedural rights as a suspect as confirmed by his signature. The record also shows that the author’s brother has been informed of the arrest. Thus, the court found that the author’s arrest record as a suspect was lawful, as it has been prepared by a duly authorised person, in the presence of the author’s lawyer, N. On 22 December 2013, the Tynda District Court ordered the author’s placement in custody. 4.28 In addition, during the trial, the court has verified the circumstances of the author’s detention in the temporary detention facility as a suspect and an accused. The court established that during his detention in custody, the author made no claims regarding unlawful detention and the acts of the police have not been recognised as unlawful. The court, acting under articles 151, 1068, 1071 and 1100 CPC, concluded that the evidence did not corroborate the author’s claims and rejected it. The author has been sent the court’s decision. 4.29 On 29 August 2016, the author filed an appeal against the decision of 24 May 2016 together with a request to prolong the deadline for appeal. On 21 September 2016, the Tynda District Court rejected the author’s request to prolong the deadline for appeal. On appeal, on 30 January 2017, the Amursk Regional Court annulled the decision of 21 September 2016 and extended the deadline for appeal. 4.30 Meanwhile, on 21 March 2016, the author’s appeal against the Ministry of Finance and the temporary detention facility reached the Amursk Regional Court. The court determined 28 April 2017 as a date for the trial and the author has been informed accordingly. The author sent no clarification to his appeal and made no request to participate in the trial through a video conference. Thus, on 28 April 2017, the court decided to proceed in the author’s absence. 4.31 In his appeal, the author has asked to have the court decision annulled, given that it was examined in his absence. He also noted that the court did not assess the circumstances of his detention between 12 and 20 December 2013 and claimed that the court did not request a number of documents from the Temporary Detention CentreHe also claimed that the obligation to provide evidence regarding the conditions of detention lies on the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The appeal ruling of 28 April 2017 of the Amursk Regional Court and the decision of the Tynda District Court of 24 May 2016 were left without change and the author’s appeal has been rejected. The court rejected the author’s arguments regarding the failure of the appeal court to assess the circumstances of his arrest between 12 and 20 December 2013 as groundless and confirmed the court’s conclusions. The author’s claim about the adoption of the decision in his absence was similarly rejected as groundless. The court noted that the law only obliges it to notify the parties of the trial and this was done regarding the author as attested by the relevant notifications. The author could have been represented but he failed to do so and he did not request to have a video conference organised either. In addition, the court noted that the law does provide for the presence of prisoners servicing a sentence to participate in civil cases. 4.32 On 28 July 2017, the author appealed to the Amursk Regional Court against the previous court’s decision regarding the trial in his absence as adopted in breach of the material law. He also noted the absence of assessment of the circumstances of his detention from 12 to 20 December 2013 and complained about the failure of the court to request a number of documents from the temporary detention facility. On 28 August 2017, the Amursk Regional Court, examined the appeal against the Tynda District Court’s decision of 24 May 2016 and the Amursk Regional court’s decision of 28 April 2017. It refused to order an examination of the appeal by the presidium of the Amursk Regional Court. Under article 387 5 The case file contains copies of notifications handed down to the author. 7