CCPR/C/126/D/2410/2014 State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 In a note verbale dated 9 September 2014, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the communication. On article 15 (1) of the Covenant 6.2 The State party submits that the Criminal Code provides for two types of imprisonment – for a definite term and for life. It notes that article 56 (4) of the Criminal Code cannot be applied in the author’s case because he has been sentenced, inter alia, to life imprisonment on separate counts for several crimes. Therefore, his final verdict was rendered in accordance with article 57 of the Criminal Code, which provides for life imprisonment for certain crimes.10 6.3 The State party notes that a person sentenced to life imprisonment can qualify for conditional early release in accordance with article 79 (5) of the Criminal Code, if it can be established by the courts that the person does not require further imprisonment and has served at least 25 years of his sentence. On article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant 6.4 The State party rejects the author’s claim that providing a meeting with his lawyer using a video link during his cassation appeal violates article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant. It notes that the Supreme Court has conducted a study on how the right to legal assistance is provided in courts of cassation and supervisory appeals in which defendants participate through video links. The study has shown that video calls are carried out before court hearings and defence lawyers are the only persons present during those calls in courtrooms. Court employees who are responsible for setting up the video connections remain outside of the courtrooms, and prison guards also leave videoconference rooms while defendants talk to their lawyers. During a court hearing, if a lawyer or defendant motions for a confidential meeting, the judge adjourns the hearing and provides an opportunity for a defendant to confidentially consult with his or her lawyer. Once the hearing resumes, the defendant is asked whether there was enough time to consult with the lawyer. This information is reflected in the record of the court hearing. On article 14 (5) of the Covenant 6.5 The State party notes that, at the time of the author’s trial, a verdict by a jury could be quashed or amended on appeal only in cases of a violation of the law on criminal procedure, an incorrect application of criminal law or an unjust verdict. Therefore, the cassation court could not review the author’s verdict on the grounds that the conclusions of the trial court did not conform to the factual circumstances of the case determined by the court. As confirmed by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, the trial judge had explained to the author the peculiarities of jury trials prior to the trial, including the grounds for future appeals. The author confirmed to the trial judge that he had understood the explanations, that he did not need additional consultations with his lawyer in this regard and that he agreed to a trial by jury. On article 14 (1) of the Covenant 6.6 The State party submits that the cassation court confirmed that the trial had been held in accordance with the law and the parties had not been restricted in presenting and examining the evidence. The trial court was correct in not allowing certain evidence, because it was either inadmissible or not relevant. 10 Article 57 (1) of the Criminal Code states: “Deprivation of liberty for life is established for the commission of especially grave crimes of attacks on human life, as well as for committing especially grave crimes against the health of the population and public morals, public safety and the sexual integrity of minors under 14 years of age.” 5