CCPR/C/119/D/2125/2011 prior violation.7 In this light, the Committee notes the author’s claims under article 9 of the Covenant concerning the illegality of his pretrial detention and under article 10 of the Covenant concerning his solitary confinement between January and March 2009, the restrictions on receiving visits from his wife and the lawyers and of the parcels from his wife. The Committee notes that the domestic proceedings on these issues were finalized before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party and finds them inadmissible ratione temporis. With regard to the remainder of the author’s claims, the Committee notes that they have been raised before the domestic courts and institutions after 30 September 2009, within the appeals and supervisory proceedings, and have been dismissed in a manner affirming the alleged violation. The Committee thus considers them admissible ratione temporis. 8.5 The Committee notes the author’s claim under article 10 of the Covenant concerning the conditions of his detention in prisons AK-159/7 in between August and September 2010 and UK-161/2, as of September 2010. The Committee observes that the author has not provided sufficient information on the domestic proceedings he undertook and materials in support of his allegations relevant to the conditions of detention in the prisons. Accordingly, the Committee finds this part of the author’s claim under article 10 of the Covenant insufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.6 The Committee notes that the author alleges a lack of independence and impartiality by judge N. because his son was involved in investigation of the financial case against the author and because the same judge examined the author’s appeals of pretrial detention orders on 30 December 2008 and 26 January 2009. The Committee observes, however, that the author has not provided sufficient information or explanation regarding the bias of the judge and his failure to fulfil his duty of impartiality and independence. Nor has the author furnished sufficient documents to support his claim. The Committee also notes that the author’s other claims under article 14 (1) of the Covenant, such as that the presiding judge pressured the defence and the jury, that the judge failed to ensure protection against the threats voiced by the family of the victims, that the jury was of unlawful composition etc., are of a general nature and have not been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. The Committee thus finds this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.7 Regarding the author’s claims under article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant, the Committee notes that the author and his lawyer did receive the trial transcripts and were able to comment on them, albeit with some delay. The author has not sufficiently specified to which documents and witness statements in particular he and his lawyers were denied access or how, in his opinion, this had affected the outcome of the proceedings. Neither has the author explained why he and his lawyers needed three additional days to prepare for pleadings. In the absence of any other pertinent information or explanation on file, the Committee therefore finds that this claim is not sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.8 The Committee notes the author’s claim that the trial court violated his rights under article 14 (3) (d) because his third lawyer U. was not allowed to represent him in the court. In this regard, the Committee notes that from the material on file that it transpires that, according to the trial court, bringing a third lawyer onto the team would have prolonged the proceedings, since the lawyer mentioned was already engaged in another trial for the whole following week and would thus have been unable to study the materials of the author’s case. Because the trial had already been going on for a month, the court decided to reject the author’s request. In this light and taking into account that the author has not indicated the importance of the third lawyer for his defence, the Committee finds that this claim is not 7 March 2013, para. 8.2; No. 1633/2007, Avadanov v. Azerbaijan, Views adopted on 25 October 2010, para. 6.2; and No. 1367/2005, Anderson v. Australia, inadmissibility decision adopted on 31 October 2006, para. 7.3. See communication No. 2027/2011, Kusherbaev v. Kazakhstan, Views adopted on 25 March 2013, para. 8.3. 7