CCPR/C/112/D/1972/2010 The complaint 3.1 The author considers that the State party violated his rights under articles 7, 10 (paras. 1 and 3), 14 (paras. 1, 3 (d), 5 and 6) and 15 (para. 1) of the Covenant. 3.2 The author maintains that the conditions of detention in the Qobustan prison, where he was held at the time of the submission, were inhuman and degrading and that they did not meet the aim of reformation and social rehabilitation, thus violating articles 7 and 10 (paras. 1 and 3) of the Covenant. 3.3 The author contends that he was denied a fair trial. He had been tortured in detention so that he confessed to a crime he did not commit. The author further contends that the investigation and the courts did not take into account the testimony of his neighbour, which provided him with an alibi for the day and time of the murder, and that he was not allowed to participate in some proceedings in violation of the principle of mandatory participation of defendants during criminal proceedings (especially for grave crimes). Despite a change in national legislation instituting a Court of Appeal, that Court rejected the author’s claim to have the Supreme Court’s judgement reviewed. In the last series of proceedings in 2006, the author was deprived of his right to have his judgement reviewed by a higher tribunal. New circumstances/elements were not taken into account and examined despite the severe sentence imposed. Based on these facts the author maintains that his rights under article 14, (paras. 1, 3 (d), 5 and 6) of the Covenant were violated. 3.4 The author further argues that the commutation of his death sentence into life imprisonment violated article 15, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. In the author’s opinion, he should have benefited from a sentence of 15 years, which was the highest penalty (except for the death penalty) provided by law at the time of commission of the offence, and which should have been the highest penalty applicable to his case after the death penalty was abolished. The State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 22 February 2011, the State party lists the charges against the author under the Criminal Codes of Azerbaijan, of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and of the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic that were in force at the time, and confirms that, on 12 November 1991, he was sentenced to the death penalty under several provisions of those codes. The State party further submits that the author’s cassation appeal had been rejected by the Supreme Court of Azerbaijan on 20 September 2005. The State party maintains that the first instance court conducted a thorough, comprehensive and objective evaluation of the case, which is evidenced by the fact that the author was charged with 18 different offences and the court excluded 11 of those from the final verdict. The remaining charges had been confirmed by the evidence presented to the court. On 24 October 2005, the Plenum of the Supreme Court decided that the words “leave the verdict without changes” should be excluded from the 20 September 2005 decision of the Supreme Court and the death sentence should be replaced with life imprisonment based on the 10 February 1998 Law. 4.2 The State party submits that, following the author’s complaint to the Office of the Procurator General that he had been beaten, the case file had been examined and the allegations could not be confirmed. 4.3 The State party submits that the beginning of the author’s sentence is counted from the date of his arrest on 6 October 1989. The author had been transferred to the Qobustan prison on 5 January 2001. It further submits that the conditions of detention of convicts sentenced to life imprisonment have been improved after the entry into force on 1 September 2000 of the new Code of Execution of Sentences. The legislation was further amended on 24 June 2008 in order to bring the execution of sentences in line with the 7