CCPR/C/115/D/2289/2013 objective and impartial in relation to the issues dealt with, and that a public prosecutor could not be considered as an officer authorized to exercise judicial power within the meaning of article 9 (3). In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the author was not brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power as required by article 9 (3) of the Covenant. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the above-mentioned facts reveal a violation of the author’s rights under article 9 (3) of the Covenant. In the light of this finding, the Committee decides not to examine separately the claims raising issues under article 9 (4) of the Covenant. 7.5 The Committee further notes the author’s allegations that the principle of presumption of innocence was not respected in his case, because he was shackled and kept in a metal cage during the court hearings, and was forced to walk with his head close to his knees. In this respect, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence, as also reflected in its general comment No. 32, according to which the presumption of innocence, which is fundamental to the protection of human rights, imposes on the prosecution the burden of proving the charge, guarantees that no guilt can be presumed until the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, ensures that the accused has the benefit of doubt, and requires that persons accused of a criminal act must be treated in accordance with this principle.20 In the same general comment, the Committee further states that defendants should normally not be shackled or kept in cages during trial, or otherwise presented to the court in a manner indicating that they may be dangerous criminals, and that the media should avoid news coverage that undermines the presumption of innocence. 21 On the basis of the information before it and in the absence of any other pertinent information or argumentation from the State party as to the need to keep the author in a metal cage throughout the court trial, the Committee considers that the facts as presented demonstrate that the right of Mr Selyun to be presumed innocent, as guaranteed under article 14 (2) of the Covenant, has been violated. 7.6 The Committee further notes the author’s allegation that, during the pretrial investigation stage, he was not afforded the effective and continued assistance of a lawyer, and that he was able to hire a privately retained lawyer only in the framework of the preparation of his cassation appeal. In this context, the Committee notes, for example, that, during more than six months of pretrial detention, the author did not have effective and continued access to his lawyers, and that the majority of the investigative actions, such as cross-examinations and interrogations, took place in the absence of a lawyer. The Committee also notes that these allegations have not been refuted by the State party. Accordingly, it considers that due weight must be given to the author’s allegations. Referring to its general comment No. 32, the Committee recalls that in cases involving capital punishment, it is axiomatic that the accused must be effectively assisted by a lawyer at all stages of the proceedings.22 In these circumstances, the Committee concludes that the facts as submitted by the author reveal a violation of his rights under article 14 (3) (b) and (d) of the Covenant. 7.7 Counsel further claims that the author's right to life under article 6 of the covenant was violated, since the author was sentenced to death after an unfair trial. The Committee observes that these allegations have not been refuted by the State party. In that respect, the Committee recalls its general comment No. 6 (1982) on the right to life, in which it noted that the provision that a sentence of death may be imposed only in accordance with the law and not contrary to the provisions of the Covenant implies that the procedural guarantees 20 21 22 8 See general comment No. 32, para. 30. Ibid. See also communication No. 1405/2005, Pustovoit v. Ukraine, Views adopted on 20 March 2014, para. 9.2. See general comment No. 32, para. 38.