CCPR/C/123/D/2537/2015 6.3 Likewise, neither the criminal trial nor the conviction and sentence handed down constitute a violation of the right to equality before the courts and before the law, as established in articles 14 (1) and 26 of the Covenant. 6.4 The author’s detention was ordered in the context of criminal proceedings instituted against him by the judicial authorities, in accordance with the law. Therefore, this measure did not violate article 9 of the Covenant. The criminal proceedings also did not constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The sentence imposed on the author by the Supreme Court does not constitute a violation of his rights under article 15 of the Covenant. Author’s comments on the merits 7.1 On 3 December 2015, the author submitted comments on the merits of the communication and reiterated the allegations of Covenant violations that he had submitted previously. 7.2 With regard to article 14 (2) of the Covenant, the author adds that a prolonged period of pretrial detention can also have an indirect impact on the presumption of innocence. 7.3 There were inconsistencies between the factual events that formed the basis of the charges against him and those for which he was ultimately convicted, in violation of article 14 (3) (a) of the Covenant. 7.4 The criminal proceedings against him constituted a violation of article 11 of the Covenant. 7.5 The author alleges that he suffered a violation of his rights under article 16 of the Covenant since, together with his family, he was forced to leave the State party for security reasons and set up home in the United States of America. In 2014, the author applied to the State party’s consulate in Miami, where consular staff treated the author in a demeaning manner and arbitrarily retained his passport in order to prevent him from completing the necessary formalities, thereby denying his right to be recognized as a person before the law. 7.6 The conviction and the sentence imposed on the author constitute a violation of his rights under article 25 of the Covenant, in that they bar him, for life, from being elected to public office or serving as a public official. Thus, he will not be permitted to stand as a candidate for election or directly to take part in the conduct of public affairs. Additional information 8.1 By letters dated 15 July and 26 August 2016, 10 February and 12 June 2017, and 21 March 2018, the author informed the Committee that, on 24 April 2015, the Constitutional Court declared certain articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure which excluded the possibility of contesting all convictions before a functionally or hierarchically superior authority to be unconstitutional and urged Congress to introduce, within a year, comprehensive legislation establishing the right to challenge all convictions. Until such legislation was adopted, all convictions should have been understood to be challengeable. 8.2 As Congress failed to adopt any such legislation, on 22 April 2016 the author informed the Supreme Court that he was challenging the verdict reached against him on 17 July 2014. 8.3 On 28 April 2016, the Supreme Court issued a ruling stating that the Constitutional Court’s order was applicable only to executory judgments issued after 24 April 2016. On 25 May 2016, the Supreme Court dismissed the author’s petition. 8.4 On 18 January 2018, through Legislative Act No. 01 of 2018, the legislature of Colombia amended the Constitution to guarantee the right to a second hearing in criminal cases for government ministers. 8.5 In the light of this amendment to the Constitution, on 22 February 2018, the author filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. On 7 March 2018, a Supreme Court judge declared the appeal inadmissible. GE.18-22078 9