CCPR/C/123/D/2785/2016 counsel to represent him before the Committee. Accordingly, the Committee is not precluded by article 1 of the Optional Protocol from examining the communication. 16 8.6 With regard to the author’s claim of a violation of article 7 of the Covenant, specifically that the repeated statements regarding the imposition of the death penalty have created such a psychological toll on Mr. Humaam as to amount to a violation of the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Committee notes that the author has failed to provide information in support of this claim, for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, it declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.7 As regards the author’s claims under article 14 of the Covenant, the Committee further notes the State party’s argument that the claims that Mr. Humaam confessed under duress and regarding Mr. Humaam’s mental health are insufficiently substantiated. It also notes the author’s assertions that Mr. Humaam’s counsel was not present when he made the confession, and that he later attempted to withdraw the confession, but that the court did not allow him to present evidence that his confession was coerced, including witnesses to that effect. Regarding the request for psychiatric assessment, the Committee notes the author’s arguments that Mr. Humaam has a history of mental illness, including provision of State care, and that his behaviour during the court proceedings indicated that he needed evaluation, which his family requested. It further notes the State party’s assertion that the issue was not raised until late in the proceedings, that an independent assessment was not the responsibility of the State party to arrange, that Mr. Humaam had not raised the issue in criminal proceedings in the past, and that, in any case, no evidence was adduced in court to support the author’s claim in this regard, and the court found Mr. Humaam to be lucid. The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated his claims under article 14 of the Covenant for the purposes of admissibility and therefore considers them admissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.8 In the light of the alleged violations of Mr. Humaam’s rights under article 14 of the Covenant, the Committee considers the author’s claim of a violation of Mr. Humaam’s rights under article 6 of the Covenant sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. The Committee therefore declares the author’s claims under articles 6 and 14 admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered this communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee notes the author’s claims under articles 6 and 14 of the Covenant that Mr. Humaam was subjected to psychological pressure to force him to confess. On 7 December 2012, when he made the confession, he was represented by counsel, but that counsel was not present. Nor was his counsel present the following day in court when he confirmed the confession. No date is given as to when Mr. Humaam’s counsel left the country. Mr. Humaam did not have counsel when the trial commenced. It appears that he did not accept State-appointed counsel. He denied having committed the offence on 6 May 2013, without counsel. On 22 May, still unrepresented, he confessed. He retracted his confession on 31 May 2013, at which time he had a lawyer. There is a reference in the timeline of the police report to the fact that he was given 10 days, on 22 April 2013, to obtain counsel of his choosing, as he did not want State-appointed counsel. It appears that he agreed to appear without counsel when the trial started. The Committee also notes that no video recording of the police interrogation and subsequent confession were made available, even though such a recording is required by domestic law; that the confession was made without access to his counsel at the time; that the statement of confession was confirmed in court, again in the absence of counsel, and before charges were officially laid against him; that although Mr. Humaam confessed guilt in court, the author contends that the threats to his family meant that he was still under duress at that time; and that, when Mr. Humaam recanted this confession in the presence of counsel and requested to call witnesses 16 See Zhuk v. Belarus (CCPR/C/109/D/1910/2009), para. 7.3. 11