A/HRC/45/CRP.9 were brought against defendants in absence of any physical evidence. In these cases, courts failed to examine the reasons for the initial arrest, as well as to ascertain whether the new charges were not used solely in order to justify the defendants’ arbitrary detention. 152. In two emblematic cases, Ukrainian citizens arrested under accusations of being part of Ukrainian sabotage groups sent to Crimea to commit terrorist acts were convicted of other charges and sentenced to prison terms. On 18 May 2017, one of the defendants was sentenced to three years of imprisonment on drug-related charges. He stated in court that the Federal Security Service (FSB) had tortured him and forced to self-incriminate on camera, which was presented as evidence. He also complained that the drugs found in his car had been planted by the FSB. No investigation was conducted to verify his claims regarding the forced confession or the evidence being planted. 153. In another emblematic case, on 4 August 2017, a court in Crimea sentenced a farmer with pro-Ukrainian opinions to three years and seven months in prison for possession of weapons and explosives. On 29 November 2016, he had affixed a sign to his house that read “Heavenly Hundred Street” in reference to protesters killed during the Maidan events in January and February 2014 in mainland Ukraine. Ten days later, FSB officers searched his home and allegedly found bullets and explosives in the attic, for which he was arrested. Although the forensic examination found no proof of the defendant’s skin contact with the bullets and explosives and the accused pleaded not guilty, claiming that the case against him was fabricated, the court convicted him solely on the basis of FSB testimony. 154. In at least 13 cases out of the total number of cases with verified fair trial violations, convictions were based 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 none of these cases did judges verify that the interests of the witnesses in remaining anonymous could justify limiting the rights of the defence to fully cross-examine witnesses. 155. In seven documented cases out of the total number of cases with verified fair trial violations, judges overly relied on reports of prosecution experts examining the contents of the defendants’ private conversations. In one particular case, the expert examination went far beyond resolving language issues, such as defining the meaning of particular words and expressions, and provided, in essence, a legal qualification of the defendants’ actions. As a result, the crucial legal finding as to the involvement of the defendants in criminal activities was made by experts, and not by judges who merely endorsed the expert’s conclusions. OHCHR also documented five cases which did not appear to respect the equality of arms. In these cases, judges admitted prosecution expert reports that contained clear shortcomings, failed to duly consider expert reports submitted by defence and denied defence motions to examine prosecution’s experts in court. In one case, the defence expert witness raised credible doubts regarding the prosecution expert’s academic credentials, distortion of the content of the examined conversations, and application of incorrect scientific methods. The judge held that the conclusions of prosecution expert reports were “substantiated and based on science”, while alternative expert reports “do not indicate to the contrary”, without providing proper rationale for giving weight to one report over the other. 156. In two high-profile cases, courts based convictions on pre-trial testimony which had been later retracted by the witnesses, lending support to views expressed by practicing lawyers that the judiciary favours the prosecution in criminal cases. In both of these cases, the witnesses retracted their pre-trial testimony against the defendants, who were accused of terrorism-related charges, alleging that their statements had been coerced through torture. Nevertheless, in both cases, the courts convicted the defendants based on the retracted testimony. In one case, the court failed to order an investigation into the witnesses’ allegations of torture. In another case, the court referred to the results of the investigation carried out by the Russian Federation Investigative Committee, which concluded that the FSB actions had no elements of a crime, and pointed to the absence of comments or grievances from the witness noted in the protocol of his interrogation. The court excluded the witness’ oral testimony in court, stating that the retraction of the previous statement was provided “with the intention to assist the defendant in avoiding criminal liability”. 33