CCPR/C/112/D/1972/2010 cassation appeal. The Committee therefore finds that in the circumstances it is not precluded ratione temporis from considering the author’s claims under article 15 of the Covenant. 8.7 The Committee further notes the author’s claims that the conditions in the Qobustan prison, where the author was detained after the commutation of the death sentence, including after the entry into force of the Optional Protocol, are inhuman and degrading in violation of his rights under articles 7 and 10 (paras. 1 and 3) of the Covenant and notes that the State party has not challenged the admissibility of those claims. The Committee finds that the author has sufficiently substantiated those claims for the purposes of admissibility and declares them admissible. 8.8 Accordingly, the Committee declares those claims of the author under articles 7, 10 (paras. 1 and 3), 14 (para. 1) and 15 admissible and proceeds to their examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for under article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee takes note of the author’s claims that the conditions in which he has been serving his life imprisonment sentence, including after the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party, amount to torture, inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of articles 7 and 10 (paras. 1 and 3) of the Covenant. It notes that the State party has confirmed most of the allegations of the author regarding: the size of the cells, the absence of opportunities for work, education, vocational training or sports for individuals serving life sentences; number of visits and phone calls they are allowed; and their general ability to maintain contact with their families. The Committee also notes the State party’s general argument that the conditions in its prisons are consistent with international standards. The Committee concludes that the author’s conditions of detention, in the period from the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party, until 24 June 2008, as described (see paras. 2.7 and 2.8 above) violated his right to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and were therefore contrary to article 10, paragraph 1.18 In the light of that finding, the Committee will not examine separately any possible claims arising under articles 7 or 10 (para. 3) in that regard.19 9.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim that, after his cassation appeal was rejected on 20 September 2005 by a panel of judges of the Supreme Court, the Plenum of the Supreme Court further reviewed that decision on 24 October 2005, leading to a modification of the author’s sentence; the Plenum held a hearing in the presence of the Procurator, but did not notify the defence, and neither the author nor his counsel attended the hearing. The State party does not contest those allegations. The Committee recalls that under the principle of equality of arms, the same procedural rights are to be afforded to both parties unless distinctions are based on law and can be justified on objective and reasonable grounds, not entailing actual disadvantage or other unfairness to the defendant. 20 In the 18 19 20 See communications No. 1813/2007, Akwanga v. Cameroon, Views adopted on 22 March 2011, para. 7.3, and No. 1628/2007, Pavlyuchenkov v. Russian Federation, Views adopted 20 July 2012, para. 9.2. See for example communication 1406/2005, Weerawansa v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 17 March 2009, para. 7.4. General comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para. 13. 13