CCPR/C/128/D/2367/2014 the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate, for the purposes of admissibility, these allegations. Accordingly, it declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.6 The Committee considers the author’s allegations that, on 21 August 2010, after having been brought to police station No. 9, he was beaten, held in a cell where he could only lie or sit on a concrete floor, not given food, not provided with access to a toilet and was not allowed to sleep. The Committee notes, however, that the State party maintains that, according to its records, the author was never placed in a cell for such a prolonged time but was, instead, brought to an office (No. 39) for two hours before being transferred to a temporary isolation ward. The Committee also notes that these allegations have been reviewed by the courts and found to lack credibility, while, in his submission, the author has failed to indicate whether and why these were decisions arbitrary or otherwise unreasonable. The Committee also notes that the author has failed to provide details regarding the alleged beatings, for example, on the methods used to beat him, exactly which parts of his body were affected, which and how many police officers caused the beatings and whether he sustained any injuries as a result. 8.7 In the light of the State party’s refutation of the allegations of the author and relevant decisions of the courts, as well as the author’s failure to produce documentary evidence in support of his allegations or to indicate if and why the decisions of the courts were arbitrary or unreasonable, the Committee cannot conclude that the conditions in the detention centre or the State party’s actions with regard to the author constituted a violation of his rights under articles 7, 10 (1) and 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant. In the absence of any further pertinent information on file, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate, for the purposes of admissibility, these allegations. Accordingly, it declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.8 The Committee also considers the author’s allegations that his right to be presumed innocent was violated when several media outlets published articles about his prosecution. The Committee notes the State party’s contention that no confidential information was revealed in the media coverage. The Committee reviewed the articles in question and was able to ascertain that they do not disclose the name of the author or any other private or identifying information. In the circumstances described by the parties, the Committee cannot conclude that the media articles, which did not identify the author, violated his rights under article 14 (2) of the Covenant. The Committee therefore considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate, for the purposes of admissibility, these allegations. It therefore declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.9 In the Committee’s view, the author has sufficiently substantiated, for the purposes of admissibility, his claims under article 14 (3) (e) of the Covenant, declares them admissible and proceeds with the consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information submitted by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee considers the author’s claims that his right to call, obtain attendance of and examine witnesses was violated in that he could not question the main witness for the prosecution, in other words the victim, the victim’s teacher, L.M.A., and expert witnesses, all of whom provided information against the author during the investigation but were not called to court to testify or were otherwise not available for questioning by the defence. Regarding the ability of a person to compel attendance of witnesses and to examine and cross-examine them, the Committee recalls its general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, in which it underscored that this guarantee is important for ensuring an effective defence by the accused and his or her counsel. It also notes, however, that the right of the accused to obtain the examination of witnesses on his or her own behalf is not absolute. The accused only have the right to have those witnesses admitted who are relevant for the defence and the right to be given a proper opportunity to question and challenge witnesses against them at 8