CCPR/C/123/D/2537/2015 of the pretrial detention order; and that the Attorney General disclosed information including his telephone numbers and his family address. As a result, his wife and children began receiving threatening telephone calls and, two days after the hearing, items were stolen from his home by criminals claiming to work for the Attorney General’s Office. 2.7 The author was held in pretrial detention by order of Bogotá High Court. He applied to the Court for release on three occasions, each time without success, as the Court ruled that the author might attempt to influence the testimony of witnesses in the case. The author claims that the Attorney General’s Office used delaying tactics to ensure his continued detention and forged and falsified the items of evidence that were used against him. 2.8 The author claims that the Supreme Court judge who presided over his trial attempted to arbitrarily accelerate the start of the trial, without allowing the parties sufficient time to evaluate the evidence and prepare the defence. The author asserts that he asked the Supreme Court to respect the timeline allowed him by law for the preparation of his defence. 2.9 On 14 June 2013, Bogotá High Court ordered that the author’s pretrial detention be terminated and that he be released. 2.10 In October 2013, the Ministry of the Interior assessed the risks to the author and his family, declaring them to be at “extraordinary risk”. The author claims that, against this backdrop, fearing for his life and that of his family, he decided to leave the country. He travelled to the United States of America on 14 June 2014. 2.11 On 13 June 2014, 48 hours before the presidential elections, the Supreme Court announced that the author would be convicted for irregularities in the administration of the AIS programme. The author claims that details of his conviction were leaked to the media. 2.12 On 17 July 2014, the Supreme Court sentenced the author to a prison term of 209 months (17 years and 5 months) and a fine of Col$ 30,800,000,000 for embezzlement by appropriation and contracting without meeting legal requirements. In addition, the Court ordered that the author’s civil rights should be restricted for the same duration as the main sentence and that he should be barred from holding public office, as set out in article 122 of the Constitution, as amended by Legislative Act No. 01 of 2004.1 The sentence stated that no appeal against the judgment was possible. The author claims that only five of the eight Supreme Court judges were present throughout the criminal proceedings. 2.13 In August 2014, the author applied for political asylum in the United States for himself and his family. The complaint 3.1 The author submits that the State party violated his rights under articles 7; 9 (1)–(4); 10 (1); 11; 14 (1), (2), (3) (a), (b) and (c), (5), (6) and (7); 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 25; and 26 of the Covenant.2 3.2 The author submits that his prolonged and unjustified pretrial detention and the conditions of his indictment hearing (para. 2.6) constituted cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, contrary to articles 7 and 17 (1) of the Covenant. 3.3 In relation to article 9 (1)–(4) of the Covenant, the author claims that his right to freedom and security was violated by the acts described in the preceding paragraph, especially when the pretrial detention order was issued against him without there being any grounds to justify such a measure. The author’s pretrial detention was unjustified, and was 1 2 GE.18-22078 Article 1 of Legislative Act No. 01 of 2004 stipulates that the fifth paragraph of article 122 of the Constitution shall read as follows: “Without prejudice to any other penalties that the law may establish, any persons who have, at any time, been convicted of offences involving State assets shall not be permitted to: put themselves forward as candidates for elected office: be elected or appointed as public servants; or enter into, either personally or through an intermediary, contracts with the State.” The communication does not substantiate the claims under articles 11, 16, 18 and 25; it simply invokes these articles. 3