CCPR/C/118/D/2106/2011 in relation to the violations of the right to defence of V.S. Following an additional investigation, he was convicted of the same charges and sentenced to the same term of imprisonment. The State party further reiterates the content of the verdict and lists the evidence based on which V.S. and V.L. were convicted. 4.2 The State party notes that the investigation and the first instance court committed a significant violation of the requirements of article 79, paragraph 4, of the Criminal Procedure Code in that an attorney, who had previously defended the alleged victim of the murder, was allowed to act as defence attorney for V.L. Taking into consideration that the above-mentioned violation is grounds for the return of a case for additional investigation, on 11 November 2011 the General Prosecutor’s Office submitted a request for a supervisory review of all court decisions taken with regard to V.L. and the return of that part of the case for additional investigation. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations and further submissions 5.1 On 13 December 2011, the authors submitted that the General Prosecutor’s request for a supervisory review had been granted by the Supreme Court on 1 December 2011, but maintained that the request itself was in contradiction with the domestic law. They submit that, according to the law, not ensuring the right to defence of a minor is a severe violation of criminal procedure, which should result in revocation of all the court decisions in the case. In addition, the case of V.S. was not included in the General Prosecutor’s request and in the decision of the Supreme Court. The authors maintain that the verdict in 2010 against V.S. was based on the testimony of the investigator or testimonies of “non-existent” witnesses and that both verdicts were based on the same evidence, collected in violation of the rules of criminal procedure. According to the authors, the aim of the review was to reconfirm the verdict and to shield the prosecutor and investigator guilty of violating criminal procedure from responsibility, as was the aim of the retrial of V.S. in 2010. The authors also maintain that the verdict against V.S. in 2010 was issued in violation of the criminal procedure, because it was based on the testimonies of witnesses who were not summoned in 2010 and were not questioned during the retrial. 5.2 On 21 December 2011, the authors submitted that the attorney of the victims had requested that all court decisions against the victims should be fully revoked, but in its decision of 1 December 2011, the Supreme Court had ignored the request and returned only the case regarding V.L. for additional investigation. They also submit that on 29 November 2011, the Prosecutor’s Office rejected their request to initiate criminal proceedings against a medical expert (name on file), who had conducted an inadequate medical examination and then provided a false testimony during the trial of the victims. The authors maintain that the expert did not have the necessary qualifications to conduct an expertise regarding the alcohol levels of the victims, that he did not find any signs of intoxication in them, but nonetheless issued a conclusion that they were intoxicated, and therefore he committed perjury. The Ministry of Health has established that the expert committed three violations while conducting the expertise, but the Prosecutor’s Office took into consideration only a violation of an instruction and the expert received a rebuke as a disciplinary punishment. 2 5.3 On 23 and 24 January 2012, the authors submitted that for one and a half years their complaints that an investigation of minors had been conducted in the absence of a lawyer had been ignored by the authorities and that the General Prosecutor’s Office only requested a supervisory review after the Bar Association initiated criminal proceedings against the lawyers who had taken part in the trial. They reiterate that even in that request the 2 4 The authors provide a copy of the decision of the Prosecutor’s Office, which mentions that the medical expert received a disciplinary punishment for violating the rules on instruction N05/011/37/5/224 of 18 April 1992.