CCPR/C/126/D/2410/2014 On article 14 (1) of the Covenant 9.3 The author reiterates that his right to a fair trial was violated by: (a) the denial of his motion to reveal the reports of the forensic examination of the clothes worn by the husband of one of the victims, as these reports could have influenced the jury’s verdict; (b) the prosecution when it tried to convince the jury that he was responsible for the death of a newborn girl even though she died from natural causes. Additional observations From the State party 10.1 In a note verbale dated 12 October 2015, the State party submitted its additional observations on the merits of the communication. On article 9 of the Covenant 10.2 The State party rejects the author’s claim that his arrest was arbitrary. It submits that, on 13 September 2005 at 5 a.m., the author was detained as a suspect in the murder of a couple, after which he was taken to a local police department and that his parents were informed by telephone of his detention. On the same day, he was held in a temporary detention facility on the grounds that he had attempted to flee. The author did not complain about the beatings by the police while in the temporary detention facility. On 14 September 2005, the author was interrogated in the presence of a lawyer, but he refused to testify. He also did not request to appoint another lawyer due to inadequate defence. At 4.50 a.m. on 15 September 2005, the author was detained again as a suspect in an attempted murder case. The author’s second arrest was based on the existence of “reasons to believe that he was attempting to flee and witnesses having identified him as the perpetrator”. On 15 September 2005, the author was interrogated in the absence of a lawyer, but again he refused to testify. On article 7 of the Covenant 10.3 With regard to the author’s claim of beatings by the police, the State party notes that the author’s complaint was examined not by the case investigator but by another investigator of the Bogotol Inter-district Prosecutor’s Office. During the October 2005 inquiry procedure initiated as a result of the complaint, the author refused to testify. The investigator interrogated three police officers who explained that the author had displayed active resistance to the police by taking swipes at them with an iron and moving towards the exit, which had prompted the officers to use force to detain him. The medical examination of the author concluded that he had suffered light injuries to his face. On 14 October 2005, the investigator concluded that the police had acted within their powers and refused to bring criminal charges against them. This decision was appealed by the author on the grounds that the investigator who conducted the inquiry had a conflict of interest. However, an additional inquiry revealed no such conflict. 10.4 In 2008, a different investigator of the Bogatol Inter-district Prosecutor’s Office conducted another inquiry into the author’s complaint about the beatings. On 14 April 2008, the investigator in question refused to bring charges against the police officers given the absence of corpus delicti in their acts. This time the author appealed it on the grounds that, at the time of his arrest, the police officers were not officially employed by the police because the records of the inquiry showed that they had held their respective positions since 2006, thus they were prohibited from detaining him or using any force against him at the time. On 22 April 2013, the author’s appeal was denied by the Bogotol District Court. On 19 September 2013, his further appeal was denied by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court. The Courts held that the police officers had acted within their powers while detaining the author and that the inquiry report showing that the police officers had held their respective positions since 2006 was only in reference to their current positions. Therefore, it did not imply that they were not part of the police force prior to 2006. 8