Octavo of Panama suffered from undue delays. Similarly, in respect of the proceedings before the Juzgado Primero of San Miguelito, it observes that investigations into allegations of fraud may be complex and that the author has not shown that the facts did not necessitate prolonged proceedings. party has confined itself to statements of a general nature, by categorically dismissing the author’s claims as baseless and asserting that the judicial procedures in the case complied with the requirements of Panamanian law. Consistent with the considerations detailed in paragraph 5.5 above, article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol enjoins a State party to investigate in good faith all the allegations of violations of the Covenant made against it and its judicial authorities, and to furnish the Committee with sufficient detail about the measures, if any, taken to remedy the situation. The summary dismissal of the allegations, as in the present case, does not meet the requirements of article 4, paragraph 2. At the same time, the Committee notes that it is incumbent upon the author of a complaint to substantiate his allegations properly. 6.5 The author claims that the State party has violated his right to be tried in his presence, protected by article 14, paragraph 3(d). The Committee notes that the State party has denied this allegation but failed to adduce any evidence to the contrary, such as a copy of the trial transcript, and finds that this provision has been violated. 6.6 The author claims that he was denied a fair trial; the State party has denied this allegation by generally affirming that the proceedings against Mr. Wolf complied with domestic procedural guarantees. It has not, however, contested the allegation that the author was not heard in any of the cases pending against him, nor that he was never served a properly motivated indictment. The Committee recalls that the concept of a “fair trial” within the meaning of article 14, paragraph 1, must be interpreted as requiring a number of conditions, such as equality of arms and respect for the principle of adversary proceedings.3 These requirements are not respected where, as in the present case, the accused is denied the opportunity to personally attend the proceedings, or where he is unable to properly instruct his legal representative. In particular, the principle of equality of arms is not respected where the accused is not served a properly motivated indictment. In the circumstances of the case, the Committee concludes that the author’s right under article 14, paragraph 1, was not respected. 6.2 While the author has not specifically invoked article 9 of the Covenant, the Committee considers that some of his claims raise issues, under this provision. Although he has claimed that he should have been granted a “grace period” of 48 hours to settle his debts before he could be arrested, the Committee lacks sufficient information to the effect that his arrest and detention were arbitrary and not based on grounds established by law. On the other hand, the author has claimed and the State party has not denied that he was never brought before a judge after his arrest, and that he never spoke with any lawyer, whether counsel of his own choice or public defender, during his detention. In the circumstances, the Committee concludes that article 9, paragraph 3, was violated because the author was not brought promptly before a judge or other judicial officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power. 6.3 The author has complained that he had no access to counsel. The State party explains, however, that he had legal representation, without clarifying whether such representation was provided by State-appointed counsel, nor contesting the author’s allegation that he never actually saw a lawyer. In the circumstances, the Committee concludes that the requirement laid down in article 14, paragraph 3 (b), that an accused person have adequate time and facilities to communicate with counsel of his own choosing has been violated. 6.7 The Committee finally notes that the State party has not addressed the author’s claim of ill-treatment during his detention. In the Committee’s opinion, the physical ill-treatment to which the author was subjected and the denial of food for five days, while not amounting to a violation of article 7 of the Covenant, did violate the author’s right, under article 10, paragraph 1, 3 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-fourth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/44/40), annex 10, sect. E, communication No. 207/1986 (Morael v. France), Views adopted on 28 July 1989, para. 93. 6.4 With respect to the author’s right, under article 14, paragraph 3(c), to be tried without unreasonable delay, the Committee cannot conclude that the proceedings before the Juzgado 83