states that the area measures 35 square metres, and not 20, as alleged by the author. 6.3 The State party further submits that the investigation has revealed that the author complained about the food only once; ifc states that this complaint did not refer to the quantity, but to the quality of the food, which he found too greasy. It further submits that the author was examined by a police doctor, who concluded that no medical obstacle existed to the author's detention. 6.4 The State party emphasizes that the detention regulations have recently been amended. It argues, however, that the regulations in force during the author's detention were fully in compliance with the Covenant, 6.5 As regards the author's allegation that he had not been given a copy of the indictment, the State party explains that the regulations at the time of the author's arrest provided for the transmission of the indictment to the party committee, in case of party members committing an offence. It emphasizes that this provision has since been repealed. 6.6 The State party further submits that the author received a copy of the indictment before the trial against him started. In this connection, the State party argues that the Hungarian Code of Criminal Procedure is in harmony with the provisions of the Covenant. The law prescribes that, on the first day of the trial, the prosecutor asks the accused and his counsel whether a copy of the indictment has been duly transmitted to them eight days before the session. If the indictment has not been transmitted in time, the accused and counsel have the right to raise an objection and ask for the adjournment of the session. The State party states that the trial transcript shows that no objection was raised by the author or his counsel on the first day of the trial, 6.7 With regard to the author's allegation that his request to have witnesses testify on his behalf was denied by the Court, the State party concedes that the trial transcript shows that the Court did not hear a certain witness, whose testimony was requested by the author. However, the State party submits that 28 of the 42 witnesses and two experts (requested by the prosecution) were heard. It contends that the witnesses who were not heard could not be reached at the addresses provided. It further argues that both the Court of first instance and the Court of Appeal considered that it was not necessary to hear the particular witness requested by the author. 6.8 Finally, the State party states that its Ministry of Justice never received the application for review, which the author allegedly sent on 30 October 1989. Moreover, it observes that the Minister of Justice has no power to review final judgements made by the courts. 7.1 In his comments on the State party's submission, the author states that he has nothing to add to his earlier complaints about the conditions of detention. He reiterates that he lost 10.5 kilograms in five and a half months of detention, 7.2 He further argues that it is incredible that the State could not find the addresses of 12 witnesses. He alleges that the State never tried to summon -320-