CCPR/C/126/D/2410/2014 started beating both him and his friend. Subsequently, as claimed by the author, he was handcuffed and taken to a nearby river where he was subjected to further physical illtreatment, including drowning. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the author was apprehended on 13 September 2005 at 5 a.m. as a suspect in the murder of a couple, after which he was taken to a local police department. The Committee observes that, despite numerous submissions, the State party has not presented any detailed information regarding the specific arguments made by the author as to the arbitrary nature of his arrest (para. 2.1). Accordingly, the Committee decides that due weight must be given to the author’s allegations. The Committee concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author’s rights under article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant. In the light of this conclusion, the Committee will not examine separately the author’s allegations under article 9 (3) and (4) of the Covenant. 13.6 The Committee notes the author’s claim under article 14 (3) (b) that the Supreme Court did not provide for a confidential meeting with his lawyer prior to his cassation appeal on 25 December 2007 (paras. 2.8 and 3.5), even though the author motioned the Supreme Court on 22 October 2007 to appoint him a lawyer for his appeal hearing and provide for a confidential meeting with the lawyer prior to the appeal (para. 7.3). In this regard, the author complains that he was only granted a meeting by video link from the courtroom on the day of the trial during which other people were allegedly also present (para. 2.8). However, the author further acknowledges that these people were the prosecutor and a court employee present in the courtroom – where they were entitled to be – and a prison guard and computer technician behind a lattice, “who could see and hear him” (para. 7.3). The Committee notes, in this regard, the State party’s argument that the Supreme Court conducted a study on how the right to legal assistance was provided in courts of cassation and supervisory appeals in which defendants participated using video links and that the study showed that video calls were carried out before court hearings and defence lawyers were the only persons present during those calls in courtrooms (para. 6.4). The Committee recalls that article 14 (3) (b) is an important element of the guarantee of a fair trial and an application of the principle of equality of arms.18 The right to communicate with counsel requires that the accused is granted prompt access to counsel. 19 Counsel should be able to meet their clients in private and to communicate with the accused in conditions that fully respect the confidentiality of their communications. 20 Bearing in mind the seriousness of the charges involved in the present case, the Committee considers that the Supreme Court’s failure to provide the author with a confidential meeting with his appointed lawyer well ahead of the appeal hearing, whether by video link or in person, does not meet the requirements of article 14. In the above circumstances, the Committee concludes that there was a violation of article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant. 13.7 With regard to the author’s claim that his appointed lawyer failed to attend the hearing on 15 September 2005 at the Bogotol District Court, which sanctioned the author’s arrest (para. 2.3), the Committee observes that a lawyer was appointed by the case investigator and was present during the interrogation on 14 September 2005. However, this lawyer did not attend the author’s interrogation on 15 September 2005 (para. 10.2) or his court hearing later that day sanctioning his arrest. Moreover, according to the author, a new lawyer was assigned to him only on 20 September 2005, when the three-day period to appeal his arrest had already passed. The Committee recalls that, in the case of appointed lawyers, blatant misbehaviour or incompetence may entail the responsibility of the State concerned for a violation of article 14 (3) (d), provided that it was manifest to the judge that the lawyer’s behaviour was incompatible with the interests of justice. 21 In these circumstances and in the absence of other pertinent observations from the State party in this regard, the Committee considers that the author’s rights under article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant have been violated. 18 19 20 21 The Committee’s general comment No. 32, para. 32. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., para. 38. 13