CCPR/C/112/D/1773/2008 individually complaints and communications. Thus, the present communication, submitted by his daughter and a lawyer, cannot be accepted for examination by the Committee. 4.5 On 24 June 2008, the State party added that the author’s allegations concerning the events of 17 February and 2 and 25 March 2006, and concerning her father’s trial were inaccurate and misrepresented facts. The Court of the Moscow District in Minsk found Mr. Kozulin guilty under articles 339 and 341 of the Criminal Code. The court’s judgment contains a description of the acts charged and the evidence on the basis of which that conclusion was reached, and gives the reasons of the court for rejecting other evidence. 4.6 The State party qualifies the author’s allegations regarding the press conference as incorrect. On 17 February 2006, Mr. Kozulin insisted on holding a press conference at the National Press Centre despite being refused permission to do so. He was not provoked there; he and those accompanying him used force against a guard. Mr. Kozulin personally insulted and humiliated the guard and pushed him, allowing those accompanying him to enter the building. Mr. Kozulin also insulted, humiliated and punched in the face another individual causing him bodily injuries, as confirmed by several witnesses, an expert’s conclusions regarding the injuries of the guard and a video recording of the events. 4.7 Mr. Kozulin’s allegations that he smashed the President’s portrait on 2 March 2006 owing to the treatment to which he was subjected were rejected by the court. Two witnesses, the record of the examination of the scene and a videotape viewed in court show that Mr. Kozulin, in a State institution, in presence of several law enforcement officials, without apparent reason, suddenly broke the glass of the frame. The court established that, before that incident, Mr. Kozulin has not been detained in the police centre for more than seven hours as alleged, but for fewer than 20 minutes, and no unlawful acts had been committed against him whatsoever. 4.8 The court correctly concluded that Mr. Kozulin’s acts on 27 February and 2 March 2006 were premeditated and seriously breached the public order, and showed clear disrespect for the society, with use of violence and destruction of others’ property, resistance to a person aiming at stopping the acts of hooliganism, committed for a second time. 4.9 The court has further established that, on 25 March 2006, Mr. Kozulin, knowing that no authorization for a meeting/rally has been issued, called upon citizens to march towards the building containing people held for having participated in another unauthorized event. He personally set the example and ignored police warnings. Several individuals testified in court and a videotape of the events showed that the crowd, led by him, marched along the pavement and the street, ignoring the police warnings. The crowd screamed and whistled, disturbing the neighbours and the workers of a company and obstructing pedestrian traffic. On Dzerzhinsky Avenue, the crowd, led by Mr. Kozulin, walked along the lane, obstructing the traffic, ignoring the calls of the police to free up the road. The crowd also resisted the military officers trying to free up the transport lanes, injuring 12 officers. Mr. Kozulin personally destroyed the camera of a police officer. 4.10 Thus, it was correctly concluded under article 342 of the Criminal Code that Mr. Kozulin organized public events and actively participated therein, seriously breaching the public order, accompanied by open non-compliance with lawful requests by officials and disrupting public transport and the work of a company. In determining his sanction, the court took into consideration the nature and the level of public danger of the offences, his motivations, the consequences (injuries of 12 persons on 25 March 2006), data on his personality and the positive assessment from his employer, his scientific achievements and the fact that he has no previous criminal record. As the crimes committed by him relate to a serious breach of the public order, within a short lapse of time, the court correctly decided 7