CCPR/C/130/D/2517/2014 4.2 In a note verbale dated 12 March 2015, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the communication. It notes that the author has been found guilty of criminal offences under several articles of the Criminal Code. His acts led to the death of 56 persons and caused injuries to a large number of people. Pursuant to article 69 (3) of the Criminal Code, the author was sentenced to life imprisonment with confiscation of property. 4.3 The State party notes that on 16 July 2004, the Supreme Court granted the author’s motion to personally attend the cassation hearing. On 23 November 2004, the Supreme Court notified the author’s lawyer, K., who represented him during the trial, about the date and time of the cassation hearing. On 15 December 2004, the Supreme Court upheld the author’s life sentence. According to the State party, the author participated in the cassation hearing by way of a videoconference. 4.4 The State party submits that the author provided oral testimony during the cassation hearing. However, he did not request to be represented by a lawyer. The State party notes that in accordance with article 51 (1) (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code, legal counsel must be present if a defendant is charged with a crime that carries a sentence of more than 15 years’ imprisonment, life imprisonment or the death penalty. In 2003, the Constitutional Court ruled that there was nothing in that provision to suggest that it did not apply to the cassation procedure. In 2007, it further clarified that the relevant articles of the Criminal Procedure Code requiring provision of legal counsel to defendants must be observed by cassation courts. 4.5 The State party reiterates that the Supreme Court recognizes a violation of the right to legal defence in cases in which the participation of legal counsel was required under article 51 of the Criminal Procedure Code but was not provided for, and the defendant did not waive his or her right to legal counsel. Decisions of the Supreme Court may be appealed by way of an appeal to the Presidium of the Supreme Court for a supervisory review. On 30 December 2013, the Supreme Court, in a single-judge formation, denied the author’s appeal for a supervisory review of his sentence. The State party notes that at that time, an appeal for a supervisory review could be submitted only within one year of the sentence entering into force. On 31 December 2014, the new federal law abolished the one-year requirement for the submission of appeals to the Supreme Court for a supervisory review. According to the State party, the author therefore has the right to appeal the decision of the Supreme Court judge of 30 December 2013 before the Chairperson of the Supreme Court or his deputy. 4.6 Lastly, the State party notes that while claiming a violation under article 14 (3) (d), the author is not asking that the ruling of the Supreme Court dated 15 December 2004 be quashed and a new cassation hearing conducted. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 13 May 2014, the author submitted his comments to the State party observations. He notes that under rule 96 (c) of the Committee’s rules of procedure (now rule 99 (c)), a communication may constitute an abuse of the right of submission if it is submitted more than five years after the exhaustion of domestic remedies. Since his communication was submitted only seven months after his appeal for a supervisory review was denied by the Supreme Court, it cannot be considered to be in violation of the Committee’s rules of procedure. 5.2 The author submits that he is of Ingush ethnicity and did not learn the Russian language until 2005, when he was in prison. His studies in secondary school were interrupted by the Ossetian-Ingush war and he managed to finish only nine years of school. He is also legally illiterate. His cellmates in prison helped him to study Russian and to write his appeals for a supervisory review and the present communication. 5.3 With regard to his lawyer, K., who represented him during his trial, the author submits that the lawyer was not retained by his relatives because they could not afford to pay his fees or his travel costs from Vladikavkaz to Moscow for the cassation hearing. The author reiterates that legal counsel must be present if a defendant is charged with a crime that carries a sentence of more than 15 years’ imprisonment, life imprisonment or the death penalty. He notes that since 1996, the Constitutional Court has consistently ruled that the right to legal defence should be provided at all stages of a criminal case. According to the author, in a number of cases between 2004 and 2008, the Supreme Court has quashed decisions of 3