CCPR/C/128/D/2367/2014 October 2010, on the premises of the temporary isolation ward. In addition, on 14 October 2010, during the pretrial detention hearings, the author was represented by K.O.N. According to the records obtained by the State party, that lawyer and two other defence lawyers also visited the author on nine additional occasions. The visits between the author and his lawyers were not limited in time. The fact that K.O.N. had decided not to meet more often with his client proves that the author had enough access to legal assistance. 6.6 Furthermore, the author claims that, during his detention in police station No. 9, he was held in a cell where he could only lie or sit on a concrete floor, was not given food and was subjected to inhuman treatment for 23 hours. The letter that was presented by the author and signed by the chief of the police station, however, confirms that the author was held there for only two hours, from 1 to 3 a.m. on 21 August 2010. During that time, the author did not file any complaints about the conditions of his detention. 6.7 As submitted previously, the State party authorities initiated an examination under articles 144 and 145 of the criminal procedure law of the Russian Federation. The examination was triggered by the author’s complaint that he had been subjected to violence and other unlawful treatment during the investigation. As a result, on 9 August 2012, no criminal case was initiated. On 14 September 2012, the Pravoberezhny District Court of the city of Magnitogorsk found the decision not to initiate a criminal case to be lawful. The trustworthiness of the allegations made is also questioned because the author never complained about the lack of food, about not having access to a toilet or about having to lie and sit on a concrete floor in the cell – not at the time, not during the investigation, not during the court hearings. Moreover, when the author was questioned on 14 May 2012, he testified that, upon being apprehended, he was brought to police station No. 9, but according to the records, the author was held in an office (No. 39), not in a cell. 6.8 Under article 31 of the criminal procedure law in force at the time, the author’s trial was not eligible for jury trial, contrary to the author’s claims. 6.9 The author had attempted to initiate a criminal case against the employees of the television station TV-IN, but the complaint was rejected on 4 February 2011. On 22 December 2014, the deputy prosecutor of the Pravoberezhny District Court annulled that decision and requested an additional examination of the facts. The results of any such examination should not, however, impinge on the lawfulness of the trial against him. During the court hearings, the author did not request the judge to recuse himself. In addition, L.M.A did not testify as a witness3 but as a “teacher”. 6.10 The author’s communication therefore contains no information to confirm any violation of the provisions of the Covenant, which can be considered as an abuse of the right of submission. The communication should therefore be considered inadmissible. 6.11 Despite the author’s contentions, he was not convicted of several crimes but only of one crime, under article 132 of the criminal law in force at the time. From the author4 7.1 On 13 February 2015, the author submitted additional comments, claiming that the State party distorts his claims. The State party’s authorities, for example, claim that the records from the temporary detention ward are not accurate and do not reflect the full list of persons who visited the author. The author submits that, contrary to this position, the records reflect information on all visitors to the temporary isolation ward. The records indicate, for example, that the author was brought to the ward from a pretrial detention centre on 23 September 2010, upon the request of the investigator, S.M.B., as part of his investigation. The author was indeed brought to the ward but both the investigator and the lawyer failed to show up. The author claims that the same had happened on other occasions, which shows that his right to access to a lawyer was violated. The lawyer’s signature appeared on various documents only later. The State party’s authorities did not provide any evidence that the lawyer, K.B.K., had been appointed to represent him. 3 4 6 It appears that this witness, L.M.A., was questioned during the investigation but did not testify in court. Including the submission received on 23 October 2015 and an email dated 26 January 2018.