CCPR/C/127/D/2431/2014 5.3 The State party also violated the author’s right to equality of arms during the trial. The court rejected a range of motions and requests from the defence, including a request to re-examine the alleged crime scene and to include as evidence a video that was aired by “Sedmoi telekanal” television station that shows that the author was not resisting police officers and did not hit M.M. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that he has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to him. In the absence of any objection by the State party in this connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 6.4 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegations under articles 7, 9 (1)–(2) and (5), 14 (1), (2, read alone and in conjunction with 2 (3)), (3) (b) and (e) and 26 of the Covenant. The Committee notes, however, that the author did not provide pertinent explanations or detailed information regarding these claims and that, for example, his allegations against the investigator and the judge are general in nature. In the circumstances of the present case, the Committee therefore considers that the author failed to substantiate the claims above for the purposes of admissibility and declares them inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 The Committee is of the view that, for the purposes of admissibility, the author has provided sufficient information regarding his claims under article 14 (3) (d) as far as they relate to his right to be present during the appeal hearings. Accordingly, the Committee declares this part of the claim admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegations that his right to a defence under article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant was violated during his appeal hearing, because he was not able to participate in the proceedings despite his request. The Committee finds that article 14 (3) (d) applies to the present case as the court examined the case as to the facts and the law and made a new assessment of the issue of guilt or innocence. The Committee recalls that article 14 (3) (d) provides that accused persons are entitled to be present during their trial and that proceedings in the absence of the accused are only permissible if this is in the interest of the proper administration of justice, that is, when accused persons, although informed of the proceedings sufficiently in advance, decline to exercise their right to be present.9 The Committee notes the author’s allegation that he had submitted a written request to be allowed to participate in person in the appeal hearing, but that those requests were ignored. The Committee also notes the author’s allegation that he was not able to participate in the hearings challenging the accuracy of the trial court transcript. In the light of the above considerations, the Committee finds that the facts before it reveal a violation of article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant. 9 6 See the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para. 36.