CCPR/C/128/D/2368/2014 article 187 (4) – robbery – of the Criminal Code. On the same day, he was interrogated by a senior investigative officer, O.L., but he refused to provide any information. 10 4.2 On 6 March 2002, the author was formally charged with robbery. Zhovtnevyy Regional Court in Odessa ordered that he be placed in pretrial detention. On 12 April 2002, the author complained to the prosecutor’s office in regard to the beatings he had suffered. The prosecutor’s office refused to open a criminal case on this basis. Nevertheless, the prosecutor’s office initiated a criminal case in regard to alleged abuse of authority by police officers “against other persons”, where the author had been a witness. 11 4.3 The author was placed in a pretrial detention centre (a “SIZO”) on 18 March 2002. A letter was recorded in his file, which is dated 4 March 2002, issued by a local hospital. This letter contains a diagnosis of multiple hematomas on the author’s buttocks and femurs. On 5 March, another letter was issued by a hospital, noting that the author had a bruise in his left eye but concluding that he needed no treatment. The same day, an ultrasound examination was performed on the author, and it concluded that the author’s health was “normal”. 4.4 When the author was placed in the SIZO detention centre, “five-day old haemorrhages were found in the lumbar region on both sides, as well as a burn measuring 4 cm2”. From 20 to 21 March 2002, the author was admitted to hospital in Odessa on “suspicion of closed abdominal trauma”, and with “an injury to his liver and an injury to his lumbar region”. He was discharged from hospital with “a recommendation for further supervision by the SIZO medical unit”. 4.5 On 31 March 2004, the appeal court in Odessa requested the prosecutor’s office to conduct an investigation into the author’s complaints that he had been subjected to “unlawful investigation methods”. On 12 April 2005, the criminal proceedings instituted against police officers were discontinued. On 9 June 2005, the appeal court again requested an investigation into the author’s complaints.12 4.6 The author had also complained that he was unlawfully detained and that he could not challenge his detention, in violation of his rights under article 9 of the Covenant. The State party submits that the author was detained on 4 March 2002 and that a preventive measure against him was decided at court on 6 March 2002. On 26 April 2002, this pretrial detention was extended for an additional four months, until 4 July 2002. The court took into consideration that the author was accused of committing “intentional, grave and especially grave crimes in an organized criminal group”, that there was sufficient reason to believe that if freed, he would “continue criminal activity”, would “abscond from the investigation” and would hinder “the establishment of the truth”. The author was also accused of crimes for which the potential punishment was more than five years. The author’s detention was extended two more times: on 19 June 2002, until 4 September 2002; and on 23 August 2002 for an additional nine months. 4.7 On 10 October 2005, the author was found guilty and was sentenced to life imprisonment with confiscation of all of his property. 4.8 The State party notes the author’s claim that his right to legal assistance was violated and he could not challenge his verdict to a higher court. It observes that on 12 April 2002, a senior investigator, Mr. B., informed the author about his right to defence counsel, and the author replied that his interests would be represented by a lawyer, Mr. T.S., who was appointed later. On 28 January 2004, Mr. K. was allowed to represent the author, in response to a request submitted to the Odessa Bar Association. On 4 March 2004 and 14 April 2004 respectively, the author refused the services of lawyers Mr. K. and Mr. D. On 22 April, another lawyer, Mr. B., was appointed to defend the author. Thus, the author was assisted by lawyers during his trial. 10 11 12 4 Here, and also in relation to points made further on in the submission, the State party refers to its “annexes” as proof, but provides no documents, other than the 12-page submission itself. No further information is provided. No further details are provided.