reveal any violation of the author’s rights under article 10, paragraph 2. arrest), he was deprived of the possibility to defend himself properly, in violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant. He also claimed that in violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (b), he was not allowed to see his lawyer between 6 August 1999 and 18 September 1999, during his stay in hospital. The State party refutes these allegations and argues that he was always assisted by a lawyer, and was informed both by the investigators and in court of his procedural defence guarantees. On the basis of the material before it, the Committee considers that there has been no violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (a) and (b). 10.8 The author has further claimed that the State party’s courts are not independent because judges are nominated by the President. The State party has not commented on this. In the absence of further relevant information from the author to the effect that he was personally affected by the alleged lack of independence of the courts that tried him, however, the Committee considers that the facts before it do not disclose a violation of article, 14, paragraph 1, on this count. 10.9 The author alleges, again in general terms, a violation of article 14, paragraph 1, in that his guilt was not proven in court, that the court proceedings were biased, incomplete, and that the court considered only the arguments of the prosecution, and that the judgement was based only on Ravkov’s deposition that the latter retracted in court. The State party replies, in detail, that the court had considered Ravkov’s retraction as a defence strategy, and that the author’s guilt was established by several other testimonies and other evidence. The Committee notes that the above claims relate primarily to the evaluation of facts and evidence. It recalls its jurisprudence that it is generally for the courts of States parties to the Covenant to evaluate facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it can be ascertained that it was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.6 The Committee considers that the material before it do not reveal that the author’s trial had suffered from such defects, and the Committee considers that the facts before it do not disclose a violation of the author’s rights under article 14, paragraph 1. 10.12 As to the author’s claim under article 14, paragraph 3 (d), that on two occasions the Supreme Court rejected his request to be represented by G.P., a member of the Belarusian Helsinki Committee, the Committee notes the State party’s objection that the author was represented by another lawyer, and that G.P. had asked to represent him only in his quality as NGO representative, and that also he had no Belarusian lawyer’s licence. The author has replied that G.P. was a member of the Moscow Bar Association and could have practised in Belarus under a specific CIS Agreement. He has however not challenged the State party’s claim that he had requested this lawyer to participate in the trial not as his own representative but as a NGO representative. In the circumstances, the Committee concludes that there has been no violation of article 14, paragraph 3 (d), in relation to this allegation. 10.13 The author has claimed that his sentence was not susceptible of cassation appeal and became executory immediately. The State party affirms that the case was examined by the Supreme Court under a supervisory procedure which reviewed the first instance judgement, and that if the Supreme Court had detected violations of the law, the judgement would have been cancelled. The Committee notes, however, that the judgement stipulates that it could not be reviewed by a higher tribunal. The supervisory review invoked by the State party only applies to already executory decisions and thus constitutes an extraordinary mean of appeal which is dependent on the discretionary power of judge or prosecutor. When such review takes place, it is limited to issues of law only and does not permit any review of facts and evidence. The Committee recalls that even if a system of appeal may not be automatic, the right to appeal within the meaning of article 14, paragraph 5, imposes on States parties a duty substantially to review conviction and sentence, both as to sufficiency of the evidence and of the law.7 In 10.10 Further in relation to article 14, the author claims that he was sentenced by the Military Chamber of the Supreme Court which was sitting in an unlawful composition, as pursuant to a decision of the Supreme Council of Belarus of 7 June 1996, people’s jurors (assessors) in military courts must be in active military service, whereas in his case, only the presiding judge was a member of the military but not the jurors. The State party has not refuted this allegation and merely stated that the trial did not suffer from any procedural defect. The Committee considers that the unchallenged fact that the court that tried the author was improperly constituted means that the court was not established by law, within the meaning of article 14, paragraph 1, and thus finds a violation of this provision on this count. 10.11 The author has claimed that since he was charged only on 5 August 1999 (23 days after his 7 See Aliboev v. Tajikistan, communication No. 985/2001, Views adopted on 18 October 2005; Khalilov v. Tajikistan, communication No. 973/2001, Views adopted on 30 March 2005, Domukovsky et al. v. Georgia, communications No. 623-627/1995, Views adopted on 6 6 See communication No. 541/1993, Errol Simms v. Jamaica, Inadmissibility decision adopted on 3 April 1995, para. 6.2. 90