CCPR/C/127/D/2719/2016 that clarifying these points as regards the circumstances of the incident would have been essential in the course of the criminal proceedings conducted against him. 3.2 The author, citing article 14 (2) of the Covenant, further complains that his right to be presumed innocent has been infringed as he was kept in a metal cage in the courtroom throughout the criminal proceedings and journalists were able to take pictures of him in handcuffs. As a result, he was humiliated in the eyes of the public and subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, also in breach of article 7 of the Covenant. 3.3 Citing article 17 (1) of the Covenant, the author alleges that his right to privacy has been violated because the prosecution disclosed his identity to the media during the pretrial investigation phase. He submits that his trial was widely followed by the public and that the extensive media coverage influenced the judges. Moreover, his name and photographs of him were published on the Internet in connection with the criminal case and, as a result, he received numerous threats from anonymous individuals. He also claims that it will be impossible for him to reintegrate into society once he serves his prison sentence. 3.4 In light of the above, the author claims that the State party has violated his rights under articles 7, 14 (2) and (3) (e) and 17 of the Covenant. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In a note verbale dated 29 March 2016, the State party requested the Committee to declare the communication inadmissible partly for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and partly for non-substantiation under articles 2 and 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 4.2 As regards the author’s allegations under article 14 (3) (e) of the Covenant, the State party first notes that the cited article does not provide an unlimited right to obtain the attendance of any witness requested by the accused, but only a right to have witnesses admitted who are relevant for the defence and to be given the opportunity to question and challenge witnesses against the accused at some stage of the proceedings. The State party recalls the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, in which it is established that, within these limits and subject to the limitations on the use of statements, confessions and other evidence obtained in violation of article 7, it is primarily for the domestic legislatures of States parties to determine the admissibility of evidence and how the courts assess them. Turning to the relevant guarantees enshrined in domestic law, the State party also notes that the right of the accused to a defence has been acknowledged by the Constitutional Court as being ensured by article 31 (6) of the Constitution. In addition, the right to a defence, as enshrined at the constitutional level, is to be interpreted in light of respective standards of international law, in particular the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention of Human Rights), which clearly guarantees the right of accused persons to examine witnesses against them. 4.3 The State party stresses that in the present case the author was given the opportunity to examine the victim during the course of the criminal proceedings. As it transpires from the court documents, the victim had in fact been questioned in the pretrial investigation phase on three occasions, i.e. on 24 October 2009, 18 November 2009 and 23 March 2010. The victim also attended two hearings of the court of first instance, on 10 May 2010 and 2 June 2010. The State party points out that at the hearing on 10 May 2010 the victim gave extensive and detailed testimony as regards the circumstances of the crime committed against her and the sequence of events that took place on the night of the incident. The State party further submits that it is evident from the transcript of the hearing before Vilnius District Court that the author and his counsel were allowed to cross-examine the victim and that both asked her questions. Therefore, the State party is of the view that the author had the opportunity to challenge the reliability of the victim’s testimony and that the author’s claim alleging a breach of his right to a defence by the State party should be dismissed as unfounded. 4.4 The State party adds that the author’s requests for additional cross-examination were thoroughly assessed by the courts on three instances and were rejected on the basis of reasoned decisions. As it appears from the court decisions, the author’s requests were 3