CCPR/C/127/D/2431/2014 reasons to consider that the investigator was biased in the outcome of the case. Later on the author also filed a complaint against the arresting police officers and the victim, M.M., claiming that they beat him up and attempted to put a mobile phone in his pocket to incriminate him. The complaint was examined and was concluded on 15 August 2014, when the police decided not to initiate a criminal case against the police officers. 4.6 On 16 July 2010, the author was found guilty as charged and sentenced to two years of imprisonment. The author’s appeal was rejected by Aktobe Regional Court on 24 August 2010, and his supervisory appeal request was denied on 6 December 2010 by the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan. 4.7 During the trial, the author claims that his rights to a public hearing were violated. According to the minutes of the court hearings, some journalists were actually present during the trial, and audio and video recordings were made of the proceedings. On 13 July 2010, it was ascertained that the audio recording of the hearings had not been stored due to a malfunction of the audio-recording equipment. At the same time, the records indicate that the author’s lawyers were able to study the minutes of the court hearings. The author himself studied the case materials as well, but refused to sign a document confirming that fact. The author filed several requests regarding the minutes of the court hearings. The requests were considered and rejected by the court, without the author being present, which is allowed under the Criminal Procedure Code. Furthermore, the author asked the presiding judge, K.U. be removed, and this request was rejected by another judge, S.A., since she saw no reasons to approve the motion. 4.8 During the appeal, the author motioned the court to allow his wife to defend him, to provide for the author’s participation during the hearings, to question two witnesses and to study video and audio recordings of the trial. Those requests were rejected on 24 August 2010. The two witnesses that the author had requested had already been questioned during the trial, and since the author did not question those statements in court, there was no need to repeat their testimony during the appellate procedure. 4.9 Additionally, in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Kazakhstan, it was not necessary for the author to participate in the appeal hearings, since there was no risk that the author would receive a harsher sentence as a result of the appeal, and the prosecution was not planning to introduce any new evidence. The appellate court also rejected the author’s request to remove judge K.O.S. from the bench. The author’s supervisory appeal was also rejected, and the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan fully confirmed the findings of the two lower courts. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 10 April 2015, the author submitted that the State party had failed to respond to several of his claims. For example, the investigation failed to identify all the witnesses that could have testified regarding the events of 27 May 2010. They could, inter alia, have confirmed the testimony of a witness, O.Z., who stated that during the time and date in question there were a lot of people around the area where the incident had taken place. During the cross-examinations of witnesses, the investigator, G.E., told them repeatedly how to testify. Furthermore, the minutes taken during the questioning were inaccurate. No criminal charges were brought against the police officers who assaulted the author. 5.2 During the author’s initial apprehension, the police officers failed to inform him about the reasons for his arrest and the rights he was entitled to. They also did not formalize a detention report, which would have indicated the precise beginning and end of the period of detention. The author was not able to receive “quality” legal assistance from the moment of apprehension or during his detention. The author’s right to be free from degrading treatment was also violated when the author was subjected to physical force, including handcuffing him. The State party never explained the lawfulness, necessity and proportionality of such measures. The State party was also never able to explain the statement of the witness, H.Y., who said that the author had not resisted the police officers. While the State party claims that there was an audio recording of the court hearing, it also admits that the recording was damaged and was not available. The video recording was not provided to the author, without the presiding judge giving any reasons. 5