A/HRC/44/21 defendants. The right to a public hearing was further diminished because the judgments in these cases were not published.7 10. In the majority of cases concerning alleged espionage or subversive activities, OHCHR received information that the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation had deprived defendants of their right to be represented by legal counsel of their own choosing by imposing State-appointed lawyers and subsequently refusing the defendants access to their privately retained lawyers. In some cases, where defendants had the means to retain private lawyers, Federal Security Service agents allegedly sought to coerce the defendants to dismiss their lawyers, reportedly threatening them with ill-treatment if they failed to do so.8 Once assigned to the case, State-appointed lawyers often appear not to have provided effective representation, sometimes allegedly failing to act in accordance with their clients’ interests. OHCHR documented cases in which State-appointed lawyers failed to raise basic due process violations,9 ignored defendants’ complaints of torture, objected to their clients’ motions during trial, and failed to take any action while present during illtreatment of their clients by Federal Security Service officers. 11. In four cases verified by OHCHR, courts delivered guilty verdicts in disregard of defendants’ right to a fair hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal.10 In two of these cases, the judges based their verdicts primarily on the testimony of anonymous witnesses. These witnesses gave evidence while screened from the public gallery, using voice-altering equipment, preventing the judge and others from seeing or hearing them in their natural state. In some of these cases, the judges overly relied on reports of prosecution experts examining the contents of the defendants’ private conversations. In addition, alternative expert reports provided by the defence were disregarded and motions by the defence to examine the prosecution’s experts in court were denied. In at least two other high-profile cases, courts relied on pretrial written testimony and confessions that had been retracted. B. Right to be free from torture and the rights to life and to liberty and security of person 12. Torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (“ill-treatment”) are prohibited by both international humanitarian law11 and international human rights law.12 International human rights law requires the State concerned to provide redress for torture and illtreatment and to ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction.13 With regard to the right to liberty and 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 In its general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, the Human Rights Committee indicated that even when a court establishes that there are exceptional circumstances that justify excluding the public from a trial, “the judgment, including the essential findings, evidence and legal reasoning must be made public, except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires, or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children”, para. 29. See, e.g., OHCHR, “Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine: 16 August to 15 November 2019”, para. 96. Available at www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/28thReportUkraine_EN.pdf. Such as a prosecutor’s interruption of the defendant’s closing arguments or the court’s acceptance of a witness’s pretrial statement without calling him or her for questioning. Including courts in the Russian Federation hearing cases concerning citizens of Ukraine living in Crimea. Fourth Geneva Convention, art. 32; Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), art. 75 (2); and International Committee of the Red Cross, Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume I: Rules (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2005), rule 90. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 5; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, arts. 7 and 10; Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; and European Convention on Human Rights, art. 3. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, arts. 12 and 16; Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 14.