CCPR/C/132/D/2675/2015 4.13 The author married his girlfriend on 11 November 2013, after having committed the murder on 1 May 2013. The main motive of the crime, as established by the investigation and the court trial, was the dispute between the author and his mother about the author’s relationship and intended marriage. The criminal conviction of the author, and its review by the appeals and cassation courts, was based on confessions by the author, transcripts of conversations held in the investigation cell, witness statements, expert opinions for the court trial and other evidence. The Supreme Court considered the criminal judgment as lawful and substantiated. In accordance with article 31 of the Constitution, the criminal sentence of the author was duly reviewed by the superior courts. Therefore, the claims of a violation of article 14 (5) are also unsubstantiated. 4.14 The State party concludes that the provisions of the Covenant were respected and requests that the complaint be dismissed as manifestly unfounded. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 3 August 2016, the author submitted objections to the State party’s observations, disputing major arguments concerning the facts and the evidence. The author focuses on individual pieces of evidence, questioning the findings of forensic biological experts as regards the author’s sweat and blood on the murder weapon that allegedly established a link between the perpetrator and the victim. He recalls that the written confession produced while he was in pretrial detention, in the presence of police officers, including the Chief of Criminal Investigation, had been forced upon him. The author contests that he had a conflictual relationship with his mother, pointing out that the victim’s husband had stated that the victim was looking forward to the author’s wedding. 5.2 The author also questions the finding of the forensic medical expert that the hammer was the murder weapon. In that context, he argues that the divergent findings of a different medical expert were not admitted by the court, thereby violating the author’s right to a defence. In addition, the author recalls that he did not have access to a lawyer during the first eight days of administrative detention and that he could enjoy that right only once he had signed the confession. Moreover, the counsel’s conversation with the author’s girlfriend was intercepted unlawfully, as the investigators wanted to facilitate their tasks. Objections thereto and other evidence in favour of the author were not admitted by the courts, to the author’s detriment. 5.3 Furthermore, the author claims that the crime scene visit was also problematic, as the investigators told the divers in which part of the canal to look for the knife that had been thrown away after the killing. The video recording taken in the pretrial cell where he allegedly made a self-incriminating confession was not genuine, according to the author. The recognition of the hammer was not objective either, as some of the witnesses stated that they were asked to recognize one of the four hammers on display, while the author insists that there was only one hammer presented during the recognition. As to the beating by the police officers during interrogation, it was done using a plastic bottle filled with water, precisely to avoid leaving any traces on the author’s body. Therefore, it was not possible to demonstrate any injuries. As regards other unlawful treatment by the police officers, he refers to his initial submission. Finally, the author claims that his trial was neither objective nor impartial, emphasizing that only about 1 per cent of criminal judgments absolve those convicted in the end. 5.4 The author concludes that his communication should be considered admissible, as the author’s right to equal treatment before the courts and the procedural guarantees in the determination of criminal charges against him were violated. He asserts that he was unjustly convicted and denies any guilt. State party’s additional observations 6.1 In its submission of 24 October 2016, the State party reiterates its observations of 18 May 2016, arguing that the author’s comments of 3 August 2016 do not raise any new facts or evidence supporting the claim that his rights were violated by either the law enforcement or judicial authorities. It submits that the communication should be considered inadmissible owing to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies or to be without merits. 5