CCPR/C/116/D/2411/2014 and 222 (1) of the Code and sentenced the author to 21 years in a penal colony of maximum security. The author’s claim about the breach of procedure during the hearing at the court of first instance was considered groundless. The Supreme Court found invalid the author’s claim that the new version of article 205 decriminalized his actions. It ruled that criminal liability for the actions committed by the author had not been abolished by the amended provision, that the old version of the Code had been applied because it provided for a lighter penalty and that there were no grounds for a different qualification of the author’s actions. 2.7 On 20 December 2011, the author filed a claim to the Constitutional Court arguing that article 205 of the Criminal Code as amended on 27 July 2006 should have been applied in his case since it decriminalized his actions. On 25 January 2012, the Constitutional Court found the author’s claim inadmissible, stating that the question of whether amendments in the criminal law contained changes beneficial to the sentenced person and whether certain provisions should be applied in the claimant’s case fell outside of the Court’s jurisdiction. 2.8 On an unspecified date, the author filed an appeal under the supervisory review proceedings to the Prosecutor General’s Office, which was rejected on 27 October 2009. On 7 June 2013, the author appealed again under the supervisory review proceedings to the Prosecutor General’s Office. In his second appeal, he referred to Supreme Court resolution No. 1 of 9 February 2012 on some aspects of judicial practice relating to criminal cases on crimes of a terrorist nature. In paragraph 1 of the resolution, the Supreme Court underlined that the actions set out in article 205 of the Criminal Code amounted to the crime of terrorism only if they were carried out with the specific purpose of influencing the decision of the authorities or of an international organization. In paragraph 11 of the resolution, the Supreme Court further clarified that, if the actions listed in article 205 were carried out with a different purpose, that should be qualified under other relevant articles of the Criminal Code. The Prosecutor General’s Office rejected the author’s appeal on 14 June 2013. 2.9 On 29 January 2008, the author filed a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights. His complaint was found inadmissible by a committee of three judges on 30 April 2010. The committee found that the material on file did not disclose any violation of the author’s rights and freedoms. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that his prolonged subjection to inhuman treatment while in the remand facility of the Federal Security Service had an adverse physical and psychological effect on him, especially taking into account the state of his health (diabetes, hypertension, gastritis, pyelonephritis, prostatitis, varicose veins, chronic bronchitis, barotrauma and reduced hearing). In this context, he claims that his rights under articles 7 and 10 (1) and (2) (a) of the Covenant have been violated. The author claims a violation of his rights under article 14 (1) of the Covenant because the presiding judge of the court of first instance was biased, had influenced the decision of the jury and had prohibited the audio recording of the hearing and the taking of written notes by the lawyer and relatives of the author while Federal Security Service representatives were allowed to video record the hearing. The author claims that the transcript of the trial, drafted over seven months, was amended by the court but that the defence did not possess audio recordings to prove the bias of the judge or other procedural violations. He also claims that the court breached the principle of equality of all persons before the law by failing to apply to him mitigating circumstances that were applied to his co-defendants and considering that the planned effects of the explosion never took place. He claims that his sentence was excessively severe and did not take into account, among other factors, his age, poor health, family circumstances and professional awards. 3.2 4