CCPR/C/128/D/2367/2014 7.2 Regarding the events of 21 August 2010, the author submits that he was brought to the police station at 1 a.m. and was placed in a cell where he could only lie or sit on a concrete floor for two hours. At 3 a.m., he was brought to office No. 39, where he was interrogated for 20 hours 45 minutes, without breaks for food or rest. During all that time, he was handcuffed to a chair in order to force him to sign a document, without a lawyer being present. The fact that the author was interrogated for more than 20 hours is itself proof of inhuman treatment. It is also noteworthy that all this occurred in spite of the fact that the legislation of the Russian Federation prohibits interrogations to be carried out at night time, as well as the use of violence against detainees. 7.3 The witness L.M.A., whom the State party calls a “teacher”, testified twice during the investigation, on 7 and 15 September 2010. On neither occasion was the defence able to question her, despite the fact that L.M.A. was included in the list of witnesses for the prosecution and the defence therefore did not need to request her presence, since the author considered that she would appear in any case. 7.4 At the same time, the State party’s authorities are not denying the fact that the media called the author a “paedophile” even before a verdict and sentence against him had been pronounced. The authorities made announcements everywhere discussing the author’s guilt, in violation of his rights under the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Covenant. The author admits that the law on jury trial was adopted after his trial but claims that the court acted unlawfully and should have explained why a jury trial was not possible in his case. 7.5 The author repeats his assertion that he was not allowed to prepare properly for his defence. On 7 October 2010, he was allowed to meet with his private lawyer, K.O.N., for only 40 minutes. It was not physically possible to discuss anything substantive during that time. The next time the author saw his lawyer was on 14 October 2010, when his pretrial detention was extended in court. 7.6 The State party’s authorities further claim that the author never complained about being subjected to violence or inhuman treatment. The author did not complain because he did not expect that any action would be taken by the investigator. The preliminary examination that resulted in the refusal by the authorities to initiate a full criminal investigation was based on testimonies of the investigator himself, S.M.B., and another police officer, P.A.V. The results of the preliminary examination should not have been based on the testimony by the perpetrators. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, decide whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 8.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s submission that the communication should be considered an abuse to the right of submission under article 3 of the Optional Protocol, since the author failed to substantiate his claims. The Committee finds that the material before it does not show that the author presented his communication in a bad faith, and that the author provided all the information and documents in his disposal. In the circumstances of the present communication, the Committee does not find that the author abused his right of submission under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 8.4 The Committee takes note of the claim that the author has exhausted all available effective domestic remedies. In the absence of any objection by the State party in this connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 8.5 The Committee has noted the author’s claims under articles 9, 14 (1) (regarding the author’s right to a trial by jury), 14 (3) (b) and article 15 (1) of the Covenant. In the absence of any further pertinent information or explanations on file, the Committee considers that 7