CCPR/C/112/D/1972/2010 (paras. 1 and 3) of the Covenant. The Committee also notes the State party’s submission that any complaints related to events that occurred prior to the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party in 2002 fall outside the Committee’s competence ratione temporis. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which alleged violations of the Covenant which occurred before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for a given State party, may be examined by the Committee if those violations continue after that date or continue to have effects which in themselves constitute a violation of the Covenant.15 In that connection, the Committee may regard an alleged violation as continuing in nature when there exists affirmation, after the entry into force of the Optional Protocol, by act or by clear implication, of previous violations by the State party.16 Regarding the author’s claims under article 14 concerning the investigation and the trial, the Committee observes that the investigation took place in 1989, and that the trial took place in 1991. Although the author’s conviction was affirmed on a belated cassation appeal in 2005, the author does not allege that those claims were brought to the attention of the Supreme Court in cassation in a manner that would enable the Committee to regard the decision on cassation as an affirmation of the previous violations. 17 Regarding the author’s claims concerning conditions in the Bayil prison, the Committee observes that he was transferred to the Qobustan prison in 2001. For those reasons, the Committee finds that, in the circumstances, it is precluded ratione temporis from considering the above claims. 8.4 The Committee notes the author’s claims that his rights under article 14, paragraphs 5 and 6, of the Covenant had been violated during the proceedings before the Qaradag District Court. With regard to paragraph 5, the Committee observes that the 2005 decision of the Qaradag District Court was itself an additional proceeding for review of the author’s sentence, alongside the cassation appeal that took place before the Supreme Court, and did not result in the type of judgment that article 14, paragraph 5, requires to be subject to appeal. With regard to paragraph 6, the Committee observes that the author’s conviction has not been reversed nor has he been pardoned. Accordingly, the Committee finds that the author has failed to substantiate the above claims for purposes of admissibility, and declares them inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.5 The Committee notes the author’s claim that, when the Plenum of the Supreme Court reviewed the decision on his cassation appeal in October 2005, the court did not notify the defence of a hearing attended by the Prosecutor, thereby violating the principle of equality of arms under article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. The Committee finds that the author has sufficiently substantiated this claim, for purposes of admissibility, and declares it admissible. 8.6 The Committee notes the author’s claims that he has been sentenced to a heavier penalty than provided by the law in violation of article 15 of the Covenant. The Committee notes again the State party’s submission that any complaints related to events that occurred prior to the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party in 2002 fall outside the Committee’s competence ratione temporis. The Committee observes that the author was initially sentenced to death, that the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment in 1998, and that life imprisonment was expressly confirmed as the legally proper sentence by the Plenum of the Supreme Court on 24 October 2005, in the course of the author’s belated 15 16 17 12 See communications No. 1070/2002, Kouidis v. Greece, Views adopted on 28 March 2006, para. 6.3, and No. 851/1999, Zhurin v. Russian Federation, decision on admissibility of 2 November 2004, para. 6.4. See communications Kouidis v. Greece, above, para. 6.6, and No. 1033/2001, Singarasa v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 21 July 2004, para. 6.3. See communication No. 2042/2011, Huseynov v. Azerbaijan, decision on admissibility of 21 July 2014, para. 6.6.