CCPR/C/123/D/2537/2015 not necessary in his case. The author further submits that he was charged with offences against the State administration and that such offences are not considered serious under any legal system. His requests for repeal of the pretrial detention order were arbitrarily refused by the judicial authorities. 3.4 The author claims a violation of his right to equality before the courts and his right to a fair hearing under article 14 (1) of the Covenant. He did not receive the same treatment as other defendants in the proceedings, as he was the only one held in pretrial detention for “many months”. His sentence was not commensurate with the gravity of the offence and other defendants accused of the same offences received less severe sentences. There was no equality of arms during the criminal proceedings as the prosecution was generally given more opportunity to prepare and present evidence than the accused’s defence team. The defendant did not have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence. The author also claims that the Attorney General was not impartial; there were conflicts of interest originating from earlier personal issues with the author’s lawyer and she had expressed a view on the author’s case when working as a journalist at a radio station. Furthermore, the head Supreme Court judge, who oversaw the trial and drafted the verdict, had attempted to recuse herself at the start of the trial, citing a conflict of interest in that she was one of the victims in a separate criminal trial under way against other members of the government of ex-President Uribe concerning alleged surveillance of Supreme Court judges. However, the Supreme Court refused her request and she continued to lead the trial, even drawing up the sentence. 3.5 The author maintains that his right to be presumed innocent under article 14 (2) was also violated, since the Attorney General had expressed an opinion on the author’s case before taking up her position, while working as a journalist. He considers that the inclusion of his case in the 2011 management report of the Attorney General’s Office under the heading “high-impact cases” also violated his right to be presumed innocent. In addition, the Supreme Court did not duly assess and evaluate the evidence presented during the trial; it convicted the author despite the fact that his conduct did not conform to the definition of embezzlement and he did not enter into contracts without meeting the legal requirements. 3.6 The author also claims that he did not have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence, in violation of article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant. A report issued by the Criminal Investigation Police on 9 March 2010, which states that the Technical Investigation Corps of the Attorney General’s Office had concluded that the author did not engage in irregular activity, was not admitted in evidence by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also refused the author’s request that a handwriting test be carried out with a view to contesting a document admitted as evidence. The President also refused to provide the author with copies of the records of meetings of the Council of Ministers at which the AIS programme was discussed. 3.7 The author claims that he was not tried without undue delay, in violation of article 14 (3) (c) of the Covenant. 3.8 The author claims that the criminal proceedings against high-ranking officials heard by the Supreme Court, at sole instance, as provided for in article 235 of the Constitution, violated article 14 (5) of the Covenant. In his case, the author had no opportunity to appeal against the conviction and sentence handed down by the Supreme Court in its judgment of 17 July 2014. 3.9 The author also alleges that the State party violated his rights under article 14 (6) in that, in the absence of any judge or court to which an appeal could be submitted, there was no other authority able to set aside his conviction at a later stage. 3.10 The author alleges that he was tried twice for the same acts in violation of article 14 (7) of the Covenant. In July 2011, the Counsel General’s Office imposed administrative sanctions on the author for irregularities in the AIS programme that occurred while he was Minister. However, although responsibility was attributed to him, no criminal intent was established. The same events were subsequently the subject of criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court which ended with his conviction. The author adds that other public bodies had concluded that there was no evidence to substantiate his alleged criminal liability. For example, the Attorney General’s Office initially dismissed suggestions that the 4 GE.18-22078