A/HRC/43/46/Add.1 additional resources be allocated to prisons to match the overall level of development of the country. C. Exceptionalities in terrorism and extremism trials 38. The Special Rapporteur received consistent information about various practices seriously undermining the protection of the right to a fair trial in terrorism and extremism cases. Despite the Government’s insistence that no exceptional rules apply to these cases, in practice, terrorism trials (and extremism cases) are covered by specific rules and specific practices relating to State security from which profound lacunae arise with regard to the principle of equality of arms. She notes that all terrorism trials are closed in practice, and many extremism trials are shrouded in secrecy. In some cases, proceedings are closed to the public and decisions are not made public. In addition, the visit identified a selective approach to the classification of and access to evidence and the privileging of access by certain lawyers, on the basis of security clearance, to State secrets. Even in situations in which trials are open, the operation of evidential rules related to State secrets and intelligence information may render such trials de facto inaccessible. Such a lack of transparency raises serious concerns about the fairness of the proceedings. In addition to consistent accounts of the use of anonymous witnesses during trials, the legitimacy of which was questioned, the Special Rapporteur also heard persistent accounts of the use of dubious, fabricated or falsified evidence, police entrapment (e.g. in the case of Teymur Akhmedov) and of “witnesses” whom the defendants had never met (e.g. in the case of Saken Tulbayev). 39. The Special Rapporteur is concerned about an overreliance on “judicial experts”, notably those dealing with theology, philology and politics, in both pretrial and trial phases of extremism and terrorism procedures. Criminal charges of extremism are often brought solely on the basis of the opinions of experts whose requisite qualifications, independence and neutrality has not been established. In trial contexts, although defendants (and judges) can call on private experts (specialists) to bring evidence, in practice, the testimonies provided by judicial experts who have undergone training at the national Centre of Judicial Expertise and who have access to confidential information that other experts cannot see, carry much more weight than any counter-expertise presented by the defendant. In the view of the Special Rapporteur, the weight given to evidence analysis per se violates the principle of equality of arms and has profound implications on fair trials. 40. Furthermore, in relation to both terrorism and extremism cases, the Special Rapporteur has repeatedly heard of the use of psychological pressure being exerted by the investigating authorities on the accused, including threats to family members, with a view to obtaining a confession of guilt at the outset of the investigation, as well as the use of “witness” status, which can then be changed and lead to charges being brought. She is concerned that many individuals accused of terrorism and extremism have no access to independent lawyers until their trials are over, and are provided with legal aid counsels who are neither viewed as fully independent nor effective in their representation, leading some to confess guilt in the hope of reduced sentences. 28 Counsels of choice are frequently hampered by late access to evidence, which seriously undermines the principle of equality of arms. The desperation felt by some of those accused of propagating religious extremism and terrorism is perhaps illustrated by reports of several individuals cutting their wrists in court following judicial rejection of a request to bring additional witnesses and experts to the stand.29 41. These practices, taken individually, all amount to violations of the provisions of the right to a fair trial protected by article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, in the general climate of fear and distrust of the Government in many key segments and constituents of society, taken together, such practices are manifest breaches of the right to a fair trial and characterize such courts as exceptional courts that fall below international standards. 28 29 Criminal Procedure Code, arts. 612–621. See www.rferl.org/a/terror-trial-in-kazakhstan-adjourned-after-defendants-cut-selves/29624270.html. 13