CCPR/C/130/D/2526/2015 circumstances, when the author in the initial stages of the criminal proceedings was only a witness and not an accused person, and moved with his immediate family to a different country, the Committee considers it would be unreasonable to require the State party to establish contact with a legally represented author after he and his family had gone into hiding and subsequently had left the country. These factors, taken together, lead the Committee to conclude that, under these specific circumstances, the author has failed to provide sufficient substantiation of his claim of violations of article 14 (3) (d) and (e) of the Covenant, and that these claims are therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.8 With regard to the author’s claim of a violation under article 27 of the Covenant, the Committee notes that the author has failed to provide sufficient information to enable the Committee to consider that the facts of the communication raise issues under this article of the Covenant. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the author’s claim concerning this part of the communication is not substantiated and is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.9 In the Committee’s view, the author has sufficiently substantiated, for the purposes of admissibility, his remaining claims raising issues under article 14 (1) and (2) of the Covenant. Accordingly, it declares the communication admissible in that regard and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that the resolution passed by the Parliament of Kyrgyzstan on 16 June 2011 denied him any prospects of a fair trial and the presumption of innocence, because it influenced the outcome of the trial, which violated his rights under article 14 (2) of the Covenant, and consequently violated his right under article 14 (1) to be judged by a fair and impartial tribunal. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the legislative branch of the Government has the power to discuss the results of the work of its fact-finding commissions and that discussions in Parliament should never be interpreted as interference in the independent work of the judicial branch because final decisions are always taken by the courts. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence 10 as reflected in its general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, according to which the presumption of innocence, which is fundamental to the protection of human rights, imposes on the prosecution the burden of proving the charge, guarantees that no guilt can be presumed until the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, ensures that the accused has the benefit of doubt and requires that persons accused of a criminal act must be treated in accordance with this principle. The Committee observes that while the text of the parliamentary resolution describes the author and his co-defendants as organizers and perpetrators of the tragic events in Osh and Jalalabad of May and June 2010, it also recommends that the Supreme Court of Kyrgyzstan ensure full transparency in criminal proceedings against persons accused of committing crimes in connection with the events in question and that relatives of defendants and representatives of international organizations be allowed access to the courtroom during the trial. The Committee notes, in this respect, that the author has not provided any information indicating how the resolution – a political document – could have affected the criminal proceedings in his case. The Committee concludes that the facts as presented to it by the author do not allow it to find a violation of his rights under article 14 (2). Consequently, the Committee also finds no violation of his right under article 14 (1) of the Covenant. 8. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the information before it does not disclose a violation by the State party of article 14 (1) and (2) of the Covenant. 10 Kovalev et al. v. Belarus (CCPR/C/106/D/2120/2011), para. 11.4; Mwamba v. Zambia (CCPR/C/98/D/1520/2006), para. 6.5; and Khudayberdiev v. Kyrgyzstan, para. 10.2. 7