CCPR/C/126/D/2410/2014 On article 14 (1) of the Covenant 10.5 With regard to the author’s psychiatric evaluation, the State party notes that, in his appeal, the author argued that, inter alia, the first psychiatric evaluation that found that he suffered from a mental illness was unlawful. The appellate court found that this argument could not be considered as grounds for overturning the initial verdict because the results of the first psychiatric evaluation were not used by the court when rendering the verdict. 10.6 The State party submits that, on 28 October 2005, the case investigator ordered a psychiatric evaluation of the author. This order was provided to the author’s lawyer and legal representative on 19 December 2005 and 16 January 2006, respectively. They reviewed the results of the evaluation on 22 December 2005 and 16 January 2006. There were no complaints or comments made by them regarding the initiation of the evaluation or the results thereof. On 28 March 2006, the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court started the court procedure to determine whether the author required compulsory medical treatment in a psychiatric institution. During the court hearing, the author’s brother, who was acting as his legal representative, testified that he had never noticed anything abnormal in the author’s behaviour, there was no one in the family who suffered from mental illness and that he studied in ordinary secondary and vocational schools. During the same hearing, the prosecutor requested the Court to arrange for another psychiatric evaluation of the author at a specialized medical institution in Moscow. The author’s lawyer supported the prosecutor’s request. 10.7 On 3 July 2006, the second psychiatric evaluation determined that the author did not have a mental illness that would prevent him from recognizing the character and public danger of his actions. On 30 August 2006, the Court announced the results of the evaluation, and both the author’s legal representative and his lawyer agreed with the results. 10.8 The State party submits that the first psychiatric evaluation was conducted at the place of the author’s detention, thus he was not placed in a psychiatric facility. Since the second evaluation was conducted by a specialized medical institution in Moscow, he was temporarily moved there from his pretrial detention facility for the duration of the second evaluation. From the author 11.1 In letters dated 12 February, 4 August, 3 October, 17 October, 14 November and 28 November 2015, 12 February and 22 June 2018, and 4 February and 11 March 2019, the author submitted additional comments. On admissibility 11.2 The author submits that, on 25 February 2014, the Deputy Prosecutor of Krasnoyarsk Region denied his request to reopen his case due to newly discovered evidence (para. 8.2). On 18 September 2015, the Central District Court of Krasnoyarsk City denied his appeal. The author appealed the decision of the Central District Court to the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court and asked the Court to allow him to attend the hearing either in person or by video link. On 22 January 2016, the author’s request was denied. On 18 February 2016, the appellate hearing was held in the absence of the author, with only his lawyer present, and his appeal was denied. The author submits that, although his lawyer was present at the hearing, she could not adequately represent him because they did not have a prior private meeting to discuss the appeal and relevant legal issues. On article 9 of the Covenant 11.3 The author rejects the State party’s argument that he was arrested on 15 September 2005 because he was attempting to flee and witnesses had identified him as the perpetrator. He submits that, at the time of his arrest, the victim identified her husband as the only suspect in the crime, and there were no other witnesses, so he could not have been named as a suspect. As for his attempt to flee, he notes that, commencing 13 September 2005 when he was detained as a suspect in another crime, he was being held in a police cell, so he could not have attempted to flee. The author submits that this shows that the Bogotol 9