CCPR/C/126/D/2410/2014 article 2 of the Optional Protocol because it would refer to the evaluation of facts and evidence, and the application of domestic legislation by the courts of the State party. The Committee also considers that the provisions of article 2 (2) cannot be invoked as a claim in a communication under the Optional Protocol in conjunction with other provisions of the Covenant, except when the failure by the State party to observe its obligations under article 2 is the proximate cause of a distinct violation of the Covenant directly affecting the individual claiming to be a victim. 13 The Committee therefore considers, for this reason too, that the author’s claims under article 2 (2) are incompatible with article 2 of the Covenant and inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 12.6 The Committee notes the author’s claim that his right to be presumed innocent was violated, since after his trial but before his cassation appeal and before his verdict entered into force, the official website of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court published a press release in which it said that the author was a recidivist, was guilty of all the crimes that he had been charged with and that he had faked his mental illness, which could have influenced the decision of the cassation court. Based on the material before it, the Committee considers that the author has not shown sufficient grounds to support his argument that the above facts influenced the Supreme Court and resulted in a violation of his rights under article 14 (2) of the Covenant. Accordingly, the Committee considers that this part of the communication is insufficiently substantiated and is therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 12.7 The Committee further notes the author’s claim that the State party violated his rights under article 15 (1) of the Covenant by sentencing him to life imprisonment, whereas article 56 (4) of the Criminal Code only provided for a prison sentence for a definite term. The Committee also notes the State party’s submission that the author was sentenced, inter alia, to life imprisonment on separate counts for several crimes, thus his final verdict was rendered in accordance with article 57 of the Criminal Code, which provides for life imprisonment. In the absence of any other information in support of his allegations, the Committee considers that this claim by the author has been insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and therefore considers it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 12.8 The Committee notes the author’s claim that his appointed lawyer failed to attend the hearing on 15 September 2005 at the Bogotol District Court, which sanctioned the author’s arrest. The Committee considers that the author’s claims also raise issues under article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant. In the Committee’s view, the author has sufficiently substantiated his claims under articles 7, 9 and 14 (2) and (3) (b), (d) and (e) of the Covenant, for the purposes of admissibility. It therefore declares them admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 13.1 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. 13.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that, at 2 a.m. on 13 September 2005, he was apprehended by several men in civilian clothes who broke into his friend’s apartment without identifying themselves as police officers, and then taken to a nearby river where he was subjected to physical ill-treatment, including drowning, and psychological pressure with the aim of extracting a confession regarding several crimes that had been committed two days prior (para. 2.1). At 5 a.m., the author was taken to the local police department where he was again beaten and held for 15 hours in handcuffs and wet clothes, without providing him with food or water. The Committee further notes the author’s claim that, when interrogated by the case investigator later that day, he complained about the injuries, which were clearly visible on his face, that he had sustained at the hands of the police officers. However, the investigator ignored his complaints (para. 2.2) and, as a result, the forensic medical examination of his injuries was not carried out until 21 September 2005, after his new lawyer submitted a formal complaint to the prosecutor’s office. The forensic 13 Poliakov v. Belarus (CCPR/C/111/D/2030/2011), para. 7.4. 11