CCPR/C/130/D/2818/2016 State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In its observations dated 7 April 2017, the State party maintains that most of the author’s factual allegations are unfounded. In its decision dated 16 June 2010, the Supreme Court sentenced the author and four other defendants to four years of imprisonment for committing human trafficking in violation of article 227 (a) (1) of the Penal Code. A period of detention that began the day of his arrest on 18 October 2009 was deducted from the sentence. The author was also required to compensate the victim and pay legal fees. The decisions of the Reykjanes District Court and the Supreme Court contain the facts of the case. The State party draws attention to the fact that, on 9 October 2009, police at the international airport in Keflavik were notified that Y, who was arriving in an aeroplane from Warsaw, was very upset and was threatening other passengers. Upon arrival in Iceland, Y was taken to a hospital. Customs officers at the airport noticed three men waiting for Y and instructed them to speak to the police when they asked whether Y had arrived. 4.2 On 10 October 2009, the police interrogated Y. She stated that she was willing to stay at the police station while the authorities secured a flight for her to return to Lithuania. She remained there for two nights but was moved on 12 October 2009 to accommodation provided by the social services in Reykjanesbær. On 13 October 2009, the police discovered that Y had left her accommodation. A witness stated that Y, not knowing her location, had asked the witness for assistance. Y handed the witness a mobile telephone and the witness spoke to a man on the other end of the line and described Y’s location to him. The witness invited Y to wait at his house and, later that evening, he escorted her to a car that had come to collect her. 4.3 On 15 October 2009, the police announced in the media that it was searching for Y. The police was notified that Y had been at a hostel with a man who had rented a room under an alias matching the author’s first name. Two days later, the police launched an official search for another defendant and a few other men who had appeared in a photograph that was in the possession of the police. The other defendant and the author reported to the police. The author was shown a still of himself taken from the security camera footage at the hostel. He confirmed that he had been at the hostel. He said that he had gone there to inquire about the price of accommodation and had left without renting a room. The author refused to answer questions about Y, who appeared in the photograph with him. 4.4 On 18 and 30 October 2009, Y gave statements to the police. She stated that the men who had come to collect her in Reykjanesbær had taken her to an apartment in Reykjavik. She had stayed in that apartment for three days and the author was her primary contact person during that time. The author drove her to the hostel where the police found her. Y stated that she believed she had been brought to Iceland to engage in sex work. 4.5 On 18 October 2009, the author was arrested. He was brought before a judge and was placed in detention on remand. On 29 December 2009, he was charged with subjecting Y to human trafficking, who had been unlawfully compelled and deprived of her freedom, including by the author, who had accepted, transported and housed Y for the purpose of sexually exploiting her. 4.6 During the trial before the Reykjanes District Court, the author claimed that he had never seen Y. He had not picked her up, nor had he transported her anywhere. He stated that he had never been in the apartment where Y was staying and that he had not been with a woman at the hostel. As the author stated, on 8 March 2010 the Reykjanes District Court sentenced him to five years of imprisonment and the Supreme Court reduced the sentence to four years in its decision of 16 June 2010. On 5 May 2010, the author submitted to the Supreme Court a letter addressed to his attorney, in which he stated many of the elements noted in paragraph 2.2 above. 4.7 The State party considers that the communication is inadmissible because it was not submitted within five years of the date on which the author had exhausted domestic remedies. The communication is also inadmissible because it is incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant. The author does not state the substance of his complaint clearly and merely refers, in general terms, to articles 2, 7, 9, 10, 14 and 26 of the Covenant, without demonstrating how those articles apply to his case. 5