CCPR/C/127/D/2920/2016 the medical personnel of the psychiatric facilities; and the refusal to allow her to put on record her injuries after her forced apprehension in her home, 15 amount to violations under article 7 of the Covenant. 3.2 The author claims that she could not appeal her arrest in 2010, that she was kept in detention for five months (12 August 2010–12 January 2011) without the sanction of a court and that she was forcefully hospitalized for 11 days (9–20 August 2013) without being brought promptly before a judge, in violation of article 9 of the Covenant. Furthermore, she contends that her unlawful apprehension on 9 August 2013 and her forced internment in a psychiatric facility and treatment there on five occasions, with the aim of punishing her for protecting her rights and for having appealed to the President of Kazakhstan, amount to a violation of her rights under article 9 of the Covenant. 3.3 The author also claims that her fair trial and due process guarantees and rights under article 14 (1) of the Covenant were violated, among other things, due to the fact that the wife of the presiding judge appeared as a prosecutor’s witness in the criminal proceeding against her, but the judge did not recuse himself; that the author did not receive a new indictment act when the charges against her were changed from article 351 (1) to article 351 (2); that the court did not take into account two independent psychiatric experts’ reports on the author’s “mental” state; and that the court did not allow her to have her trial videorecorded as a guarantee of a fair and public hearing. The author’s forced psychiatric hospitalization was also in breach of her right to be presumed innocent under article 14 (2). The author was forced to abandon her own defence and on two occasions her counsel was not allowed to assist her, in breach of article 14 (3) (d). 3.4 The impossibility of appeal against her unlawful arrest, the arbitrary denial of access to cassation appeal and supervisory review of the unlawful acts of the Deputy Сhief Medical Officer and the impossibility of appeal against the actions of the medical experts and the diagnosis of chronic delusional disorder amount to a violation of the author’s rights under article 14, read in conjunction with article 2 of the Covenant. 3.5 The author further claims that her rights under articles 18 and 19 of the Covenant were violated, since she was forcibly interned in psychiatric facilities in order to silence her and to prohibit her from defending her rights and those of other people. 3.6 The author requests the Committee to urge the State party to ensure her freedom and security; to ensure that the decisions of the Karaganda regional court of 25 December and 16 October 2012 and the decision of the Almaty city court of 1 February 2012 16 are reconsidered; to ensure that she receives fair compensation and rehabilitation; to ensure that the State party conducts a full investigation of all her torture allegations; to ensure that all people can enjoy their rights enshrined in articles 2, 7, 9, 14, 18 and 19 of the Covenant; and to ensure that forced hospitalization on a discriminatory and arbitrary basis is prohibited. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In a note verbale dated 3 July 2017, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits and requested that the communication be declared inadmissible as unsubstantiated. 4.2 The State party reiterates the facts of the criminal prosecution against the author and submits that the author was charged with “knowingly false denunciation” under article 351 (2) of the Criminal Code. On 12 February 2010, the court decided to replace the ban against the author’s leaving the city with an order for her arrest, as the author was obstructing the criminal proceedings, she refused to provide the court with her identity papers, she disrespected the court by threatening to start a hunger strike and riot, and she exerted a negative influence on the other participants of the proceedings. 4.3 The State party notes that the court ordered a compulsory psychiatric examination of the author on 26 February 2010. According to the psychiatric experts’ report of 2 April 2010, in order to respond to all the questions put before the experts, it was recommended to 15 16 The author did not provide more information about the arrest in her home and the injuries received. The author cites the date of the Almaty city court decision as 1 February 2012, although in other parts of the complaint she mentions a date of 1 February 2013. 5