CCPR/C/132/D/3038/2017 Advance unedited version CCP, court decisions can be annulled or modified based on significant violations of the norms of material or procedural law, which have affected the outcome of a case, if no other avenues exist to assure the respect of the violated rights and freedoms and if the public concerns so require. The Amursk Regional Court revealed no such breaches by the first and appeal instance courts. The court noted that the author’s arguments had already been examined by the appeal court and were correctly rejected, and thus, there was no need for further verification. 4.33 The disagreement of the author concerning the conclusions of the court and the establishment of the circumstances for the purposes of article 387 CCP cannot serve as a basis for the re-examination of a court decision which has acquired the force of res judicata as annulment or reformation within a cassation proceeding is only allowed in case of serious breach of norms of material or procedural law which took place in the context of the previous adjudication and affected the outcome of the case. Under article 327 CCP, on appeal, the appeal instance can assess the evidence on file and the additionally presented evidence, while the cassation court is not allowed to assess elements of evidence or to establish new circumstances. A copy of the refusal of the Amursk Regional Court of 28 August 2017 to order the examination of the cassation appeal was sent to the author on 20 September 2017. 4.34 The State party adds that in the context of its monitoring prerogatives, in 2016, the Tynda City Prosecutor’s Office established that the temporary detention facility could accommodate 18 detainees. The cells are equipped with chairs, benches and shelves, water pipe, radio receptors to broadcast the all-State channels, illumination, and ventilation. Tableware is assured during nutrition. The cells are equipped with WCs assuring respect of privacy. Walls are plastered and painted and the floors are wooden. Detainees can visit the room for meetings with relatives, and take walks in the temporary detention facility’s yard. The prosecutor’s office revealed a breach in the regulations regarding the day light and on 29 March 2016, requested the Tynda District Court to recognise the acts of the Office of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Amursk Krai and the temporary detention facility as constituting an unlawful inaction materializing in the non-respect of the legislation regarding the daily light in the cells and the service premises of the detention centre. As a result, the Amursk department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the temporary detention facility were obliged to carry out reconstruction works, or, alternatively, to build a new detention centre. 4.35 In addition, in light of the requirements of the Federal law on the custody of suspects or accused, those accused or suspects can be transferred from pretrial detention centres to temporary detention centres when this is needed for the conduct of investigation activities, or examination of court cases outside of the locality, when the transfer on a daily basis is impossible, but not more than 10 days a month. It was revealed that the author has been detained unlawfully in the temporary detention facility as a suspect and an accused, from 20 December 2013 to 15 January 2014 (17 days). 6 As a result, a deputy prosecutor of the Amursk region wrote to the head of the Amursk Office of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, regarding the need not to breach the law. Thus, the prosecutor’s office has taken the necessary measures to remedy the breach of the law within its monitoring functions. 4.36 In light of the above, the State party believes that no breach of the author’s rights under the Covenant has occurred. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 5.1 The author presented his comments on the State party’s observations on 13 December 2018. He reiterates that he was arrested and detained at the temporary detention facility on 12 December 2013, but the State party has not assessed this and its reply is flawed and constitutes a confirmation of the fact that he has indeed been detained on 12 December. His arrest was not recorded within 3 hours as requested under the law, nor was he charged. Thus, according to him, his detention was unlawful and as a consequence, all subsequent investigation activities should be excluded as evidence. 6 8 Please see explanatory footnote 1, on the difference between temporary detention centre – IVS and pre-trial detention centre – SIZO.