CCPR/C/112/D/1773/2008 4.19 Regarding the court’s refusal to allow the author to represent her father, article 44, part 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives courts a right, not an obligation, to allow a relative as representative. Mr. Kozulin was represented in court by two defence lawyers; his daughter was not an attorney. Accordingly, his right to defence was not violated and the refusal to allow his daughter to represent him was lawful. The State party further rejects as groundless the allegations that Mr. Kozulin’s right to prepare his defence and communicate with his lawyers was limited. At the end of the preliminary investigation, he and his lawyers acquainted themselves with the criminal case file’s content and could prepare, either collectively or individually. They had the same opportunity throughout the trial, and they used it without limitations. 4.20 As Mr. Kozulin was kept in pretrial detention, and during the trial and the breaks, he was placed in specially designated places for the accused. 4.21 The author’s allegations regarding the breach of the equality of arms in court and the breach of Mr. Kozulin’s right to call witnesses are, according to the State party, also groundless. The court, as obliged by the law, examined all requests made by the parties and provided reasoned replies. Throughout the trial, the parties were provided with equal rights regarding retention of evidence. The court took measures to have injured parties and witnesses called to the courtroom. The Code of Criminal Procedure permits the trial to proceed in the absence of an injured party. Where it is impossible to have an injured party present, the court may ask that the injured party’s prior depositions to be read out (art. 333 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Witnesses who had appeared in court at the initiative of the parties were questioned. Requests to call witnesses regarding circumstances unrelated to the criminal case in question were rejected by the court. 4.22 The State party rejects the allegations concerning the publicity of the trial and those regarding the guarantees to be tried by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal, and notes that the trial took place at the Moscow District Court in Minsk, in its biggest court room equipped with a large number of seats; the trial was public. All diplomats, journalists, and Mr. Kozulin’s relatives had access. Other individuals were also allowed to enter the room, subject to availability of seats. Everyone could take notes or make audio records. Given the large number of individuals in the courtroom, and in order to assure normal conduct of work for the parties, the presiding judge refused to allow pictures or videos to be taken. Article 287, part 6, of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows pictures, filming or video recordings only with the agreement of the judge and the acceptance of the parties. All requests were duly examined by the court; their large number does not demonstrate that they were substantiated. The rejected requests concerned the establishment of circumstances falling outside of the scope of the trial, which, in accordance with article 301, part 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, relates exclusively to the accused and is limited to the charges faced. All well-reasoned requests by Mr. Kozulin and the other participants were satisfied. 4.23 The need to comply with the rules was explained to all parties of the trial and the individuals present in the courtroom by the court and they were warned about their responsibility under article 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (measures regarding the violation of the order in a court meeting). Nevertheless, individuals committed violations and ignored the lawful requests made by the presiding judge. As a result, they were ordered out of the room. 4.24 Mr. Kozulin was warned on more than ten occasions (orally) and four occasions with an official record in the trial transcript that he may be requested to quit the room if he did not respect the court’s injunctions or the rules, in particular by making statements without having been given the floor, or offensive remarks against the judges or the prosecution. He disregarded the warnings and had to leave on two occasions. He was ruled out of the room at the end of the deliberations and had no opportunity to make a final 9