CCPR/C/119/D/2125/2011 2.6 On 25 November 2008, after being transferred to the pretrial detention facility of the Ministry of Justice, the author wrote two more confessions in the absence of his lawyers. On 27 November 2008, he wrote a statement refusing the services of three out of his four lawyers, K., S. and N., and requesting to be transferred back to the police temporary detention facility. On 6 December 2008, the author met with his lawyers and wrote a statement confirming his wish to be defended by them. On 12 December 2008, the author, in the presence of his lawyer K., retracted the two confessions written on 25 November 2008. 2.7 On 29 December 2008, the Department of Internal Affairs took a decision not to open a criminal case against the police officers who had allegedly ill-treated the author. On 9 February 2009, the Prosecutor’s Office of Astana ordered further investigation to be carried out, in particular because some witnesses had not been identified and questioned by the investigators and some other (unspecified) actions to verify the claims made had not been undertaken. On 16 March 2009, after an additional investigation, the Department of Internal Affairs refused to open a criminal case. The decision of 16 March 2009 was an exact copy of the decision of 29 December 2008. The author’s appeal, submitted on an unspecified date to the Prosecutor General’s Office was rejected on 27 May 2009. On 21 January 2010, in response to a letter from the author’s wife dated 30 December 2009, the Prosecutor General’s Office stated that the allegations concerning the use of unlawful investigative methods towards the author were considered by the trial court and the appeal court and could not be confirmed. 2.8 The author was held in the police temporary detention facility from 24 October to 30 December 2008, although, by law, he should have been placed in a pretrial detention facility of the Ministry of Justice. He was transferred to a pretrial detention facility, remaining there from 25 to 27 November 2008 and then from 30 December 2008 to the end of his pretrial detention. Between 30 December 2008 and 10 March 2009, he was held in solitary confinement. At this time, he was not allowed to receive packages from his wife. 2.9 On numerous occasions between 24 October 2008 and 6 January 2009, the author’s lawyers were denied access to him. When they managed to have a meeting with the author, it was only for a couple of minutes and in the presence of police officers. 2.10 Since his first encounter with the police on 22 October 2008, the author has insisted that he had an alibi for the evening of 21 October 2008, when the murder was said to have been committed. This alibi could be confirmed by nine witnesses and by the transcripts of his home and mobile telephone calls. The police, however, started to check his alibi only in January 2009. 2.11 On 2 March 2009, the author’s criminal case was transmitted to court. The author alleges numerous violations of his rights during the trial. Among others, the author claims that the four retracted confessions were accepted by the court as evidence; the presiding judge did not allow the author to mention torture by the police and, when he did mention it, the judge asked the jury not to take this information into account; one of his lawyers, U., was not allowed to represent him in court; 3 and the court did not take into account the author’s alibi and based its verdict on inadmissible evidence, which was collected in violation of procedural norms and was not sufficient to prove his guilt. The author further claims that the principle of equality of arms was violated in the court, since he and his lawyers were not allowed to introduce any evidence. During the court hearings, the judge denied 190 questions by the defence and rejected 52 defence petitions. The experts invited by the author were heard by the court as witnesses and not as experts and their expert opinion was not taken into account. The author also claims that he received copies and not the originals of the trial transcripts, that some transcripts were missing and were given to him late, only after numerous complaints, and that his lawyers were denied the request for three extra days to prepare the pleadings. The second presiding judge, N., was not impartial, because his son was a financial police officer investigating a case against the author. The same judge also examined the author’s appeals of pretrial detention orders on 30 December 3 The author already was represented by two lawyers who had represented him since the beginning of his detention. U. was contracted by the author’s wife when the trial was ongoing. 3