CCPR/C/122/D/2252/2013 detainee, given the refusal by the State party to provide any information regarding the investigation, including the findings of the autopsy, and considers that it amounts to inhuman treatment of the author, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 7.7 Regarding the author’s claims that Ms. Muradova was arbitrarily detained as a result of her journalistic and human rights activities, in violation of her rights under articles 9 (1) and 19, the Committee notes the author’s submission that Ms. Muradova co-founded a human rights organization, that she compiled a list of names of several hundred dissidents who were jailed, and that she cooperated with an independent radio station (paras. 2.2–2.3 above). In this regard, the Committee recalls its long-standing jurisprudence that the protection against arbitrary detention is to be applied broadly and that the “arbitrariness” is not to be equated with “against the law”, but must be interpreted more broadly to include elements of inappropriateness, injustice, and lack of predictability and due process of law. 18 The Committee also recalls that an arrest or detention as punishment for the legitimate exercise of the rights as guaranteed by the Covenant is arbitrary, including freedom of opinion and expression (art. 19).19 The Committee notes the author’s claims regarding a series of actions taken by the State party leading up to and including the arrest aiming at intimidating and silencing Ms. Muradova, explicitly targeting her activities as a human rights defender and journalist. It also notes the author’s information regarding the televised statements of the then-President Niyazov and high officials and their call for the condemnation of Ms. Muradova for her human rights and journalistic work. The Committee considers therefore that the author has established that Ms. Muradova was arrested and detained for her journalistic and human rights work, a fact not refuted by the State party. In the circumstances described by the author, and in the absence of the State party’s explanations regarding these elements of the communication, the Committee considers that there has been a violation of Ms. Muradova’s rights under articles 9 (1) and 19 of the Covenant. 7.8 The author has further claimed a violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant, as Ms. Muradova’s pretrial detention was approved by a prosecutor and not by a judge. The Committee recalls provisions of its general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person that a detainee must be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and that it is inherent in the proper exercise of judicial power that it be exercised by an authority that is independent, objective and impartial.20 The Committee also concluded that a public prosecutor cannot be considered as an officer exercising judicial power21 under article 9 (3) of the Covenant. Accordingly, and in the absence of the State party’s submission in this regard, the Committee concludes that there has been a violation of Ms. Muradova’s rights under article 9 (3) of the Covenant. 7.9 Regarding the author’s contention that, although the trial hearings must be public according to domestic legislation, no relatives or members of NGOs were allowed in the courtroom, 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 stated that all trials in criminal matters or related to a suit at law must in principle be conducted orally and publicly and that the publicity of hearings ensured the transparency of proceedings and thus provided an important safeguard for the interest of the individual and of society at large. 22 In the present case, the author contends that Ms. Muradova’s friends and relatives, as well as members of the public, such as members of NGOs and representatives of embassies, were not allowed to be present. The author claims that the lawyer was also prevented from attending the trial at the beginning and that Ms. Muradova was not able to present her defence or make full statements. In the absence of any refutations by the State party, the Committee considers that due weight must be given to the author’s allegations. The Committee therefore concludes that the facts as submitted disclose a violation of Ms. Muradova’s rights under article 14 (1) of the Covenant. 23 18 19 20 21 22 23 See general comment No. 35, para. 12. Ibid, para. 17, quoting Zelaya Blanco v. Nicaragua (CCPR/C/51/D/328/1988), para. 10.3. See Kulomin v. Hungary (CCPR/C/56/D/521/1992), para. 11.3. See general comment No. 35, para. 32. See general comment No. 32, para. 28. See, for example, Amanklychev v. Turkmenistan (CCPR/C/116/D/2078/2011), para. 7.4. 9