CCPR/C/126/D/2410/2014 7. The Committee refers, in particular, to a key witness, the author’s friend at whose apartment he was detained, who was not questioned by the authorities to clarify the circumstances of the author’s detention (para. 13.3). This seems, however, not to be entirely accurate. According to the author (para. 9.2), his friend testified at the trial that he had also been subjected to beatings when the police came looking for the author, However, as can be seen in the court transcript, this testimony during the trial was very vague, so it cannot even be said with certainty that the friend was with the author in his apartment on the night of the arrest. And the same applies to the allegation by the author (para. 2.1) that a witness confirmed, during the trial, that he had been taken to the river and beaten there. The witness only stated he had been beaten and threatened by the police with being “taken to the place where they had drowned the author” (footnote 2), which is in itself no direct evidence, but just hearsay testimony. Taking pieces of evidence out of context, when domestic courts have repeatedly investigated and assessed, in successive judgments, all the available evidence, poses significant problems, unless there is sufficient evidence to the contrary, which, in my view, was not the case in the communication. Ultimately, on 19 April 2007, a jury found the author guilty of committing multiple murders, extortion, hooliganism, illegal acquisition of firearms and assault and, on 3 May 2007, the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court sentenced him to life imprisonment. I would therefore have concluded that there had been no violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 8. Regarding the violation of article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant, the Committee is particularly laconic, referring only to the fact 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 and so due weight should be given to the author’s allegations. However, in my view, this is again not accurate and does not reflect the facts in the case. 9. The author claims, in this regard (para. 3.2), to have been unlawfully arrested by several men who did not identify themselves as police officers or provide him with an arrest warrant. He was unlawfully held for 18 hours before being interrogated, including beaten for 3 hours by the river. Also, he was held for 53 hours before being appearing in front of a judge, while domestic law requires that any arrest must be sanctioned by a judge within 48 hours. 10. As regards the first argument, as the author himself acknowledges (para. 2.1), the persons arresting him identified themselves as police officers and asked the author to confess to the killing of four people and wounding another two days prior. He was taken, that same day (para. 2.2), to the office of the investigator of the Krasnoyarsk Region Prosecutor’s Office for formal questioning. The State party states 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 later held in a temporary detention centre on the grounds that he had attempted to flee (para. 10.2 and para. 4 above). On 14 September 2005, the author was interrogated in the presence of a lawyer, but he refused to testify. On 15 September 2005, according to the author (para. 2.3), he was declared a suspect in another crime and, at 10 a.m. on the same day, taken to Bogotol District Court, which sanctioned his arrest, although for the second crime. 11. The author was, therefore, deprived of his liberty on the grounds of and in accordance with procedures established by domestic law, his detention being neither unlawful nor arbitrary. A judge, in fact, assessed all the circumstances of his detention, thought them in accordance with domestic law and sanctioned the detention. The fact that the author was brought before a judge 53 hours after his detention (para. 3.2), and not within 48 hours, is easily explained, since he was detained in the early morning of 13 September 2005 and was brought before the court at 10 a.m. on 15 September. Therefore, the fact he was brought before a judge 5 hours after the 48-hour rule seems justified under the circumstances.1 I would therefore have also concluded that there had been no violation of article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant. 1 16 The Committee’s general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, para. 33.