damaging for the child and there should be closure and the child should be permitted to get on with the new opportunity which she has for a decent life.” The Committee notes however that the child’s psychologist considered that the child was in a state of limbo because she was “confused by her mother’s absence”. Further, the judge pointed out that “it is significant to note that the child that we are dealing with now is not the same one that was apprehended in that these proceedings have taken nearly three years and we are now dealing with a seven-year-old child who has now expressed the desire not to return home”. While the Committee has taken note that the judge did examine the child’s wishes and ordered crown wardship without access in the best interests of the child, the Committee cannot share the Court’s assessment that the termination of all contact between mother and child could serve the child’s best interest in this case. In view of the above, the Committee considers that the author and her daughter did not have a fair hearing in the child protection trial, in violation of article 14, paragraph 1. 14, paragraph 1; article 17 read alone and in conjunction with article 2; article 23; and article 24 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 10. In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author and her daughter with an effective remedy, including regular access of the author to her daughter and appropriate compensation for the author. In addition, the State party should take steps to prevent further occurrences of such violations in the future. 11. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant or not, and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy in case a violation has been established, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 90 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s views. 9. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol, finds that the facts before it disclose a violation of article Communication No. 1100/2002 Submitted by: Yuri Bandajevsky (represented by counsel) Alleged victim: The author State party: Belarus Date of adoption of Views: 28 March 2006 Subject matter: Detention ordered under antiterrorist legislation; alleged persecution because of public expression of opinions critical of State party’s Government. imprisoned in Minsk, Belarus. He claims to be a victim of violations by Belarus of his rights under articles 9, 10, 14 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He is represented by counsel. Procedural issues: Level of substantiation of claim; non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The facts as presented by the author Substantive issues: Unlawful detention; conditions of detention, unfair trial, freedom of opinion/right to impart information. 2.1 The author was a professor and Rector of the State Institute of Medicine in Gomel, Belarus. In 1999, a criminal case was filed against him under article 169 of the Criminal Code of Belarus (1960 version), on a charge of having accepted bribes. He was arrested on 13 July 1999, subsequently released, but asked not to leave the State territory. On 18 June 2001, the Military Chamber (Collegium) of the Supreme Court convicted him of having accepted bribes, pursuant to article 430 of the Criminal Code (1999 version), and sentenced him to 8 years of imprisonment. According to the author, the Court held that in 1997, when he was Rector of the Articles of the Covenant: 9, 10, 14 and 19 Articles of the Optional Protocol: 2 and 5, para. 2 (a) Finding: Violation (arts. 9, paras. 3 and 4; 10, para. 1; and 14, paras. 1 and 5) 1. The author of the communication is Yuri Bandajevsky, a citizen of Belarus, born in 1957, who at the time of submission of the communication was 84