9.3 He contends that on 31 January 2005, the penitentiary authorities refused to request his anticipated release, allegedly because they considered that he could not demonstrate that he was “rehabilitated”, and also because he was absent from the colony, and refused to pay the fine of 35 million BLR. He affirms that his absence from the colony for 3 months was due to “clinical treatments for illnesses he contracted in prison”. do so. This allegation has not been refuted by the State party, which only noted that the author’s arrest and subsequent detention were subject to previous approval by a public prosecutor. The Committee recalls,4 first, that it is inherent to the proper exercise of judicial power, that it be exercised by an authority which is independent, objective and impartial in relation to the issues dealt with. It further considers that the public prosecutor cannot be characterized as having the institutional objectivity and impartiality to be considered as an “officer authorized to exercise judicial power” within the meaning of article 9, paragraph 3. 5 In the circumstances, the Committee concludes that the author’s rights under article 9, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, were violated. 9.4 On 1 June 2005, the author reiterated that his scientific work is limited to the analysing of data of his past research. According to him, his treatment in Minsk towards the end of 2004 had been approved by the chief of the penitentiary colony; he wrote to the colony and received the authority’s agreement to be treated in Minsk, without informing him of any particular obligation to notify or to report to the police. He called the penitentiary twice a week, and regularly faxed copies of attestations and medical records; the penitentiary authorities checked his whereabouts on several occasions, by calling the medical institutions concerned and asking to talk to him. 10.4 In light of the above finding, the Committee considers that the author’s right under article 9, paragraph 4, of the Covenant, was also violated. 10.5 The Committee notes the author’s allegations under article 10, paragraph 1, about the lack of appropriate medical care and on the way he was treated medically in detention. The State party in turn provides detailed information on the type of medical treatment, clinical examinations and hospitalizations the author received or underwent while in detention. It also affirms that neither the author nor his relatives or his lawyer complained to the competent authorities or in court about these issues. This is not refuted by the author. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that there is no violation of article 10, paragraph 1. Examination of the merits 10.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required by article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 10.2 The Committee has noted the author’s claim that his arrest on 13 July 1999 was “groundless”, that he was not informed on the reasons upon arrest, was not able to meet with his lawyer within the first 24 hours, and was indicted for bribery only 23 days later, and that the Presidential Decree “On the urgent measures for the fight of terrorism and other particularly dangerous violent crimes” was applied to him to limit his defence rights. The State party claims that the author’s arrest and pretrial detention were lawful, as a criminal case for bribery had been opened on 12 July 1999 against him; that there were grounds for believing that he was a leader of a criminal group, and that the investigators had information that he exercised pressure on witnesses of the case. According to the State party, the author’s arrest under the provisions of the Decree was fully justified, as the crime he was suspected of was serious; he was informed of the reasons for arrest, and was accused within 23 days, and also he was represented by a lawyer throughout the preliminary investigation. On the basis of the information before it, the Committee concludes that there has been no violation of article 9, paragraph 1. 10.6 The Committee has noted the author’s allegations, that, contrary to article 10, paragraph 1, the conditions of detention in the Gomel detention centre, where he was held from 13 July 1999 to 6 August 1999, were inappropriate for long stays, and that the centre was not equipped with beds; that, in general, he did not have items of personal hygiene or adequate personal facilities. The State party has not refuted these allegations. In the circumstances, the Committee must give them due weight, and it concludes that the author’s conditions of detention reveal a violation of his rights under article 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. 10.7 The author has claimed that during his preliminary detention, his conditions of detention were “identical to those of convicted prisoners”. Even though the State party has not commented on this, the Committee notes that the author’s allegation remains vague and general. Accordingly, and in the absence of any other pertinent information, the Committee concludes that the facts before it do not 10.3 However, the author claimed that he was arrested and detained for 23 days under Decree No. 21 (1997), without any possibility to challenge the lawfulness of his detention before a court, as those detained under this Decree are not allowed to 4 See Kulomin v. Hungary, communication No. 521/1992, Views adopted on 22 March 1996, para. 11.3. 5 See Views on communication No. 1218/2003, Platonov v. Russian Federation, adopted 1 November 2005, para. 7.2. 89