CCPR/C/116/D/2411/2014 about his treatment in the pre-remand facility and that he made a declaration in that regard before the court of first instance. The Committee, however, does not find documents on file to confirm the author’s statement about making a declaration before the court of first instance regarding his treatment in violation of articles 7 and 10 (1) and (2) (a) of the Covenant, nor has he supplied any medical documents relevant to his pretrial detention or to complaints or appeals to support his claim. In the absence of any other pertinent information on file, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claim under articles 7 and 10 (1) and (2) (a) of the Covenant and finds it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.4 Regarding the author’s claims under article 14 (1) of the Covenant that the presiding judge prohibited the carrying out of an audio recording of the hearing and took away the written notes of the author’s lawyer and relatives, and regarding also his claims concerning the violation of the principle of equality before the law that allegedly occurred when his sentence was calculated, the Committee notes that the author does not provide any information to support his allegations and therefore finds that this part of the complaint is insufficiently substantiated and inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 Regarding the author’s claim under article 14 (1) of the Covenant that his sentence was excessively severe and did not take into account his personal and family circumstances, the Committee notes that the claim involves an interpretation of national legislation and that national legislation is in principle interpreted by the courts of States parties, unless the sentence was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 4 The Committee considers that there is nothing in the submissions of the author that would indicate that the evaluation was manifestly arbitrary. The Committee therefore finds that this part of the author’s claim is insufficiently substantiated and inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.6 As for the author’s claims under article 14 (1) and (3) (e) in relation to the examination of the facts of his case, the alleged biased behaviour of the presiding judge, the refusal to carry out an additional expert examination and questioning of witnesses, the Committee recalls that it is generally for the States parties’ courts to evaluate facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it can be ascertained that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice, or that the court failed in its duty of independence and impartiality.5 The Committee notes the State party’s argument, left unaddressed by the author, that the author and his counsel were given an opportunity to question the witnesses during the court hearing but did not use this opportunity. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s argument that the refusal of the presiding judge to allow additional expert examination took into account the position of the participants of the trial and the reasons for a refusal were duly reflected in the transcript of the trial. Furthermore, as it transpires form the submissions of the State party, on a number of occasions the presiding judge instructed the jury not to take into account certain information and evidence. The Committee notes that the above arguments were left unaddressed by the author. In the light of the information available on file, the Committee considers that, in the present case, the author has failed to demonstrate that the trial has indeed suffered from “bias” or “lack of equality of arms”, showing arbitrariness in the evaluation of the evidence and amounting to a denial of justice. The Committee therefore concludes that the author’s claims under article 14 (1) and (3) (e) are insufficiently 4 5 See, for example, communication No. 1342/2005, Gavrilin v. Belarus, Views adopted on 28 March 2007. See, for example, communication No. 1894/2009, G.J. v. Lithuania, Views adopted on 25 March 2014. 7