CCPR/C/132/D/2675/2015 6.2 The State party recalls that the author was convicted on 4 October 2013 for the murder of his mother, whom he hit 11 times with a hammer on the head and stabbed repeatedly (see art. 96 (1) of the Criminal Code). The criminal sentence of 10 years of imprisonment was reviewed by the appeals and cassation courts, on 27 November 2013 and 12 February 2014, respectively. On 9 July 2014, the Supervisory Review Panel for Criminal Affairs of the Supreme Court issued a decision dismissing the author’s application for a supervisory review. 6.3 Following the amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure Code in 2017, the author and his counsel could nonetheless also submit an appellate complaint – a request to the Supreme Court to review the final criminal sentence, pursuant to article 414 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or apply to the Prosecutor-General to submit a request for review by the Supreme Court. The author had an opportunity to submit a request to the Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court based on the new evidence or to apply to the ProsecutorGeneral to submit a request for review. Since the author failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies, without explaining why he did not resort to them, the State party requests that the communication be considered inadmissible pursuant to article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 6.4 The State party asserts that all the arguments presented by the author had already been examined by the criminal courts of three different instances. The arguments were not supported by facts and evidence and appeared made up. In principle, the author disputes the assessment of the facts and the evidence by the national courts. The State party explains the reasons for its dismissal of the author’s objections regarding the forensic medical expertise, the summoning of witnesses, the statements and cross-examination of the witnesses and the claims made by experts regarding biological, criminological and telecommunications aspects admitted by the courts, which were deemed to have been substantiated and which did not meet with any objections or questions by the participants in the proceedings. The totality of the evidence proved the author’s guilt (see para. 4.5 above). Furthermore, the State party rejects the allegation that the evidence was tampered with. 6.5 As concerns the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing, the State party rejects the author’s claim that this right was violated in his case, arguing that the author had access to his lawyer since 2 May 2013 and that the lawyer participated in all aspects of the investigation that required the author’s presence. The lawyer also had access to the author when in pretrial detention, and there is no evidence that restrictions were imposed by the detention authorities or the investigator. Regarding the interceptions of conversations between the lawyer and the author’s girlfriend, they were authorized at the request of the prosecutor and were used only in relation to the author’s criminal case. However, the court did not use the recorded conversations as evidence of the author’s guilt or to convict the author. In the protocol of 29 July 2013 informing the author and his counsel about the material evidence gathered, no objections were entered, and the author confirmed the absence of reservations even as concerns the expertise on the video recording of the pretrial detention cell. The recording is of the author, including his voice, as confirmed by the protocols on the author’s questioning and witness testimonies. 6.6 The results of the inspection by the Regional Office of Public Security of the Ministry of the Interior did not confirm the use of violence against the author during his investigation. The medical forensic expertise presented on 6 May 2013 did not establish any injuries on the author’s body. The State party further rejects the author’s allegations that his confession was extracted by force, since the victim’s bag and a knife were found in the canal on the basis of the information included in the author’s confession, which confirmed the author’s admission of guilt. Importantly, the author and his counsel did not make any claims of torture or illtreatment during the court trial. The courts did not receive any evidence that the criminal investigation officers had violated any of the author’s procedural guarantees during the investigation, including during his questioning. The courts assessed those claims fully and objectively, but to no avail. The fact that the knife was found in the canal, without any tampering by the authorities, was confirmed by two witnesses. The authorities searched that specific part of the canal following the author’s written confession, in which the author had indicated the exact location where he had thrown the knife, as well as the handbag and the 6