CCPR/C/112/D/1989/2010 2.2 During the trial before the Zavodskoy District Court, the two police officers who had arrested the author on 25 March 2008 testified to having detained him during the demonstration. According to the author, neither of them could testify that they actually saw him participating in the demonstration, but only that he had been “handed over” to them by other police officers to be brought to the police station. Nevertheless, on 26 March 2008, the District Court found him guilty of having committed an administrative offence under article 23.34, paragraph 1, of the Code of Administrative Offences for participating in an unsanctioned mass event and fined him in the amount of 700,000 Belarusian roubles.2 2.3 The author claims that he had requested the district court to ensure the participation of a representative, as he was a student and could not afford one. The court declined his request, invoking article 4.3 of the Procedural-Executive Code of Administrative Offences, as the author did not fall within the category of persons who, under the law, were to be represented by a “lawful representative”. 3 The author also requested the court to question a particular witness, but his request was rejected with the explanation that the witness in question was detained on the basis of the same offence. 2.4 On 3 April 2008, the author appealed the judgment of 26 March 2008 of the District Court to the Minsk City Court, claiming that the judgement of the District Court was unlawful, noting, inter alia, that the presence of his representative had not been assured during the hearing. His appeal was dismissed on 15 April 2008. The Minsk City Court ruled that the author’s guilt was established on the basis of the corroborating evidence gathered and on the witnesses’ testimonies. It also concluded that under article 4.3 of the Procedural-Executive Code of Administrative Offences, the author did not fall under those categories of persons who, under the law, were to be provided with a lawful representative, and noted that he had not requested the participation of his legal representative, i.e. a lawyer, in line with the requirements as set out in article 4.5 of the Code.4 The author explains that he did not avail himself of the possibility to appeal that decision within the supervisory review procedure, as in Belarus such a review is conducted by a single official, who does not even examine the case file, and therefore the procedure is not an effective remedy. The complaint 3.1 The author claims to be a victim of a violation by the State party of his rights under article 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, on account of the fact that he was apprehended and detained without food and water for 19 hours. 3.2 He also claims to be a victim of a violation of his rights under article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, since the first instance court dismissed his request to ensure the participation of a “representative” and to question a particular witness who could testify in the author’s defence. 2 3 4 Pursuant to article 23.34 of the Code of Administrative Offences, a person may be issued a warning, fined in an amount of up to 50 minimum monthly wages or an administrative arrest (i.e. detention) may be imposed. Art. 4.3 provides for, among others, that lawful representation within administrative proceedings must be ensured to special category of persons such as to minors and persons with restricted legal capacity. Article 4.5 of the same Code regulates access to a defence lawyer, to be differentiated from the “lawful representative” as mentioned above. Art. 4.5 states that a counsel or a representative of a natural person within administrative proceedings may be, inter alia, a legal counsel, who is a citizen of Belarus, or a close relative and s/he is authorized to act on behalf of that person by a power of attorney written in a free form and, in the case of a counsel, also has a legal counsel’s certificate. 3

Select target paragraph3