CCPR/C/119/D/2125/2011 3.3 The author further claims that the restrictions of the visits by his wife and lawyers and restriction of the possibility of receiving packages from his wife while in pretrial detention, the solitary confinement in the pretrial detention facility and the conditions of detention in the colony AK-159/7 and in the correction facility UK-161/2 were in violation of his rights under article 10 of the Covenant. 3.4 The author claims that, during the judicial proceedings, his rights under article 14 (1), read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), and article 14 (2) and (3) (b), (d), (e) and (g) of the Covenant have been violated. 3.5 The author finally alleges that his right under article 14 (5) of the Covenant to have his conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal was violated because he was not present during the appeal hearing and because the appeal court has failed to review the facts of his case before rejecting his appeal in a formal decision. 3.6 The author seeks an effective investigation into his allegations of torture and punishment of those responsible for it; the revision of the court’s verdict with the exemption from evidence of the four confessions extracted from him under torture; and full and adequate reparation of the violations suffered, including compensation and rehabilitation. State party’s observations 4.1 In a note verbale dated 25 February 2012, the State party submitted its observations. The State party states that the Department of Internal Affairs carried out an investigation into the alleged ill-treatment of the author by police officers but could not confirm the author’s allegations. The decision of the Department not to open a criminal case was upheld by the Prosecutor’s Office. The investigation ended with the decision of the Department of Internal Affairs, dated 16 March 2009, not to open a criminal case against the police officers. The materials and results of the investigation were considered in the trial court. 4.2 The State party further maintains that, since his arrest on 24 October 2008, the author’s lawyers had permission to visit him and all investigative actions have been conducted in their presence and were followed by medical examinations. 5 The author’s detention was authorized and extended by the court in accordance with the national legislation. 4.3 The State party observes that the author has written four confessions, in which he provided evidence against E. and stated that he witnessed how E. attacked Y. According to expert conclusion No. 2388/1 dated 18 December 2008, the analysis of the author’s handwriting in the four texts did not reveal the mental or physical state of the author to be out of the ordinary at the time of writing. The State party maintains that the head of the police temporary detention facility stated that no pressure was exerted on the author in detention and that there was no restriction of the visits by his lawyers. The court found that the evidence had been obtained in a lawful way and accepted it as admissible. The court based its verdict not only on the confessions by the author, but also on evidence collected during the investigation, among them the fingerprint of the author found in the bathroom of the victims’ house and on their car, his DNA on the cigarette found in the yard of the victims’ house, the statements of E. and the debt he owed to Y. The author’s alibi is confirmed only by his relatives and a friend of his wife. The transcript of the author’s mobile telephone calls shows that there were no telephone calls after 7 p.m. on 21 October 2008. 4.4 The State party denies any violation of the author’s rights during the investigation or the judicial proceedings in his case. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 20 April 2012, the author submitted his comments to the observations of the State party. To the State party’s observation concerning the investigation into the author’s 5 Reference is made to the following dates: 30 and 31 October 2008 and 4, 5, 6, 11, 13 and 21 November 2008. 5