CCPR/C/128/D/2367/2014 supposedly, the author was preparing for his defence with his lawyer but the lawyer was not present. The presence of the lawyer’s signature does not prove that the lawyer was actually there, as the signature could have been added post factum. In addition, the author signed an agreement with a private lawyer, K.O.N., on 6 October 2010, but was only allowed to meet with that lawyer on 18 October 2010, that is, 12 days after the agreement had been signed. 5.4 The author further submits that his detention for 23 hours in police station No. 9 in the city of Magnitogorsk violated his rights. He had to stay in a cell where he could only lie or sit on a concrete floor, without “proper nutrition” and without being able to use a toilet. During that time, he was constantly interrogated and was not given enough time to sleep. Moreover, he was forced to sign a confession and other “procedural documents” and was promised to be treated better in return, e.g. to be able to sleep on a mattress. 5.5 Regarding the statement by the victim, the author submits that, while he had the right to challenge witnesses testifying against him, he was not able to challenge the main witness – the victim herself, since her statements were simply read out during the court hearings. Another important witness, L.M.A., testified in court but the judge did not allow any questions to be posed to her. 5.6 The author further submits that his right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise was violated when it was announced on television that he was a “stepdad-rapist”. The author requested the presiding judge to recuse himself, but he refused. 5.7 The author also requested from the authorities that a jury trial be held, but that request too was rejected. The author wanted his fellow citizens to judge him, through a more transparent and just process, but the court did not find any reason to grant this request, which violated the author’s rights to a fair trial. Additional submissions From the State party 6.1 By notes verbales dated 13 February 2015, 30 July 2015 and 22 January 2016, the State party reiterated its previous position that the author was provided with access to a lawyer from the moment of his arrest. In cases where the defendants cannot afford a lawyer, counsel is appointed ex-officio and no contract or agreement is needed. The author provides a letter from K.B.K. simply stating that no contract had been signed. During the apprehension, the author did not have a lawyer, which is why one was appointed to him. The investigator in the case signed an order (No. 1088), appointing a lawyer, K.B.K., to represent the author. On the same day, 21 August 2010, the author was interrogated twice in the presence of the lawyer. 6.2 On 21 August 2010, as attested by the records, a police officer on duty at police station No. 9 put together a statement from the author, who had come to the police station voluntarily and admitted that on 20 August 2010 he had picked up his stepdaughter from his mother-in-law’s house, had taken her to a forest and had raped her there. Upon submitting his statement, he was immediately arrested as a suspect and sent from the police station to a temporary detention ward, as required by the criminal procedure law. When the author was brought to the ward, no injuries on his body were recorded, contrary to his claims that he was beaten by police officers. The author only informed the medical personnel that he was HIV-positive and had a pain in his chest. The author did not complain about torture to his cellmates or to his lawyer. 6.3 On 22 August 2010, the Pravoberezhny District Court in the city of Magnitogorsk prolonged the author’s detention pending trial. 6.4 Regarding legal representation, the author provides a letter, which, he claims, proves that the lawyer was not present in the temporary detention ward from 22 August 2010 to 30 March 2011. However, when the lawyer, K.B.K., was questioned on 24 July 2012, she confirmed having been present during the interrogations. At that time, the author did not file any complaints with his lawyer regarding the actions of the police officers. 6.5 In his efforts to mislead the Committee, the author claims that, until 18 October 2010, the law enforcement authorities impeded access to the private lawyer that he had hired, K.O.N., with whom he had signed a contract on 6 October 2010. In reality, the records that the author himself provided indicate that said lawyer spoke to his client on 7 5