CCPR/C/126/D/2410/2014 Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 In a letter dated 16 October 2014, the author provided his comments on the State party’s observations on the merits. On article 15 (1) of the Covenant 7.2 The author admits that for some of the crimes for which he was convicted he was sentenced to life imprisonment. However, he reiterates his position, namely that article 56 (4) of the Criminal Code should have been applied in his case and the final sentence should not exceed 25 years in prison. On article 14 (3) b) of the Covenant 7.3 The author rejects the State party’s argument that his meeting by video link with his lawyer was confidential. He submits that, during the video call, he saw the prosecutor and a court employee present in the courtroom. The room in the prison, from where he was talking to his lawyer, was also not private as there were a prison guard and a computer technician behind a lattice who could see and hear him. Moreover, the author submits that, on 22 October 2007, he motioned the Supreme Court to appoint him a lawyer for his appeal hearing and provide for a confidential meeting with the lawyer prior to the appeal. Even though the Supreme Court had sufficient time to appoint a lawyer and to arrange for a meeting, the meeting by video link was not arranged until the day of the appeal hearing. On article 14 (1) of the Covenant 7.4 The author alleges that some evidence during his trial was manipulated, namely the reports of the biological and ballistic forensic examinations of the gun that was allegedly used to kill the victims, resulting in discrepancies that should have made the reports inadmissible as evidence. However, the author claims that his motions to suppress the reports were denied by the trial court and the reports were presented by the prosecution to the jury. Although the author later motioned the Krasnoyarsk Region Prosecutor’s Office to reopen his criminal case due to newly discovered evidence, citing the forensic reports, his motions were denied. 7.5 The author notes that, during the trial, there were six witnesses who disowned their testimonies given during the pretrial investigation. The witnesses stated that the testimonies contained elements that they had not said during interrogation. In response, the prosecutor told the jury that those witnesses were all part of the same gang and they were trying to help the author to escape responsibility for the crimes that he had committed. 7.6 The author further notes that he was precluded from presenting evidence to the jury to support the claim that one of the crimes he had been charged with could have been committed by another person. His motion to reveal the report of the forensic examination of the clothes worn by the husband of one of the victims was denied by the trial judge as irrelevant to the trial. The author claims that this report would have shown to the jury that the crime could have been committed by the victim’s husband, or at least cast doubt on his own guilt. 7.7 The author submits that, during the trial, the prosecutor illegally influenced the jury by telling them that the author was guilty of the death of an infant girl who in fact had died from heart illness.11 The prosecutor speculated that the illness could have been triggered by the author’s actions against the parents before the birth. State party’s additional observations 8.1 In a note verbale dated 13 February 2015 and another dated 23 February 2015, the State party submitted further observations on admissibility and the merits. 11 6 The author was found guilty of extorting money from a couple who were expecting a girl who was later born with a congenital heart defect. She died from the illness shortly after birth.