CCPR/C/112/D/1972/2010 against him was conducted in violation of procedural law and the court was forced to exclude 11 of the 18 charges from the indictment and that, instead of issuing a verdict and convicting him to the death penalty, the court should have ordered a new investigation into the remaining charges. The author makes reference to cases he considers similar to his, in which the domestic courts had reviewed the sentencing and replaced the life imprisonment sentences with shorter prison terms. He submits that, since the judgments of the Panel and the Plenum of the Supreme Court had been adopted on 20 September 2005 and 24 October 2005, respectively, i.e. after the entry into force of the Optional Protocol, his claims are admissible. 5.2 As to the State party’s argument that the author had filed an application before the European Court, the author notes that the above application had been rejected by a standard letter, without explanation of the reasons and refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence, where in a similar case it had declared a communication admissible. 10 He maintains that his claims are no longer being examined by the European Court and that they had never been examined on their merits and accordingly should be declared admissible. 5.3 The author also notes that the State party had confirmed that, although the majority of the prisoners serving life sentences had been transferred to Qobustan prison in March 1998, he remained in the Bayil prison for three more years in much worse conditions. He also notes that the State party had confirmed that the conditions of detention were not in accordance with the international standards at least until 24 June 2008. He further submits that the State party had confirmed that the detention regime was improved for the author only as of 10 May 2005. Under the Code of Execution of Sentences, the regime of detention may be improved after the convict had served 10 years. The author was arrested on 11 September 1989, therefore his detention regime could have been lightened as of 1 September 2000, when the Code was adopted, but that did not happen because “of the biased attitude of the prison administration”. 5.4 The author further reiterates that, despite the fact that the size of the cells in Qobustan prison corresponds to the domestic standards, it does not correspond to international standards, especially taking into consideration that the prisoners remain in those cells for 23 hours a day, and refers to the recommendation by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, establishing a standard of 7 square metres per inmate.11 The author further submits that, since he started serving his sentence, numerous high-ranking officials from the prison service, including its head had been discharged from office for “abuses of duties”. He also submits that the State party’s authorities have been discussing the need for a new prison for individuals serving life sentences since 2000, and the construction of such a prison started in 2007, but to date it remains unclear when the project will be finalized. He goes on to outline numerous general problems within the correctional system, such as inadequate investigations of complaints of prisoners, delays and disappearance of prisoner’s correspondence, and no opportunities for work, training or sports for the inmates. Additional information by the State party 6.1 On 14 November 2011, the State party submits that the Supreme Court has conducted a verification of the legality of and the grounds for the life imprisonment sentence against the author. The State party reiterates the content of the 12 November 1991 10 11 The author refers to communication No. 1633/2007, Avadanov v. Azerbaijan, Views adopted on 25 October 2010, para. 6.1. European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, Second General Report on the CPT’s activities covering the period 1 January to 31 December 1991, see note 4 above, para. 43. 9