CCPR/C/127/D/2431/2014 appeal. On 6 December 2010, the Supreme Court rejected the author’s application for a supervisory review. The author was not informed about this and therefore could not attend the hearings of 24 August and 6 December 2010. The author served his prison term from 16 July 2010 to 13 April 2012. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that he was arrested in violation of article 9 (2) of the Covenant, as he was not informed of the reasons for his arrest. Furthermore, in violation of article 9 (1) of the Covenant, his arrest was not recorded and he had no access to a lawyer. He argues that the duration of his arrest was excessive, as he was held from about 10.30 a.m. to 5 p.m., that is, about 6.5 hours. The Committee has previously held that the excessive duration of detention can lead to an otherwise lawful detention becoming an arbitrary detention or arrest.3 He maintains that he was subjected to arbitrary detention and claims compensation, with reference to article 9 (5) of the Covenant. 3.2 The author claims that by using disproportionate force against him and by handcuffing him, the policemen aimed to humiliate him and breach his human dignity, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 3.3 The author submits that he was deprived of a public hearing, in violation of his right under article 14 (1) of the Covenant. To start with, his request for the video recording of the court proceedings was rejected by the presiding judge without providing any reasons. The limitations on the public nature of the court hearings must be explained by the State party under one of the exceptions listed in article 14 (1) of the Covenant, and the court did not engage in this analysis. 3.4 The author also submits that his right to presumption of innocence under article 14 (2) was violated, since during the trial the presiding judge publicly stated that “the complainant and his lawyers will present their objections in their points of appeal”. One of the most important aspects of the fair trial is equality of arms, which the trial court failed to observe. For example, it refused to call witnesses on behalf of the defence. The author also claims that the investigator, G.E., was biased, particularly due to his involvement in both the investigation into the criminal case against the author and the investigation into the author’s complaint against the policemen. The author submits that the refusal to carry out an investigation against the policemen predetermined the outcome of the proceedings against him. 3.5 The author further submits that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair. He claims that he was deprived of the opportunity to have additional expert examinations conducted, in violation of article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant. 4 3.6 Furthermore, the author was informed neither of the appeal hearing nor of the hearing concerning his comments and complaints regarding the accuracy of the trial record. As a result, those hearings were held in absentia, 5 in violation of article 14 (2) and (3) (d) of the Covenant. The courts provided no explanation as to why it was necessary to restrict the author’s right to a public hearing. He also claims that the judges lacked independence and impartiality, especially as they rejected his requests, 6 and erred in the assessment of evidence. 3 4 5 6 The author refers to the Committee’s decision in Spakmo v. Norway (CCPR/C/67/D/631/1995). In particular, he claims that material evidence in the case was returned to their owners, which deprived him of any opportunity to examine it and request additional expert acts in that connection. For instance, he was deprived of the opportunity to request an additional expert examination of a mobile phone, which could have proven the absence of his fingerprints thereon and therefore could have invalidated the testimonies of M.M. and other prosecution witnesses and could have resulted in the termination of the criminal proceedings against the author. As transpires from the material on file, his lawyer attended the appeal hearing. In accordance with article 408 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Kazakhstan, the presence of the convicted person in the appeal court is necessary only in the event that new evidence is examined. For instance, the court discarded his request to declare inadmissible evidence proving his guilt, such as a damaged shirt of one of the policemen and the expert conclusion of 11 June 2010. The author 3