CAT/C/UZB/CO/4 Mehliboev, Rustam Usmanov, Vahit Gunes, Zahid Umataliev, Norboy Kholjigitov and Yusuf Jumaev. While noting the responses of the State party to cases of alleged violations of the Convention, the Committee reiterates its concern that the State party presented extensive detail on the alleged crimes committed by the complainants and not on any State party investigations into these allegations of torture (arts. 12, 13 and 16). The State party should provide further specific information regarding the steps taken to investigate the instances of alleged torture and ill-treatment raised by the Committee. The State party should provide the Committee with current data on the number of complaints received alleging torture and ill-treatment by law enforcement and other public officials, the number investigated by the State party, any prosecutions brought and any resulting convictions and sentences. The State party should also provide the Committee with data on cases in which officials were subjected to disciplinary measures for failure to investigate complaints of torture or ill-treatment adequately or for refusal to cooperate in investigating any such complaint. Definition of torture and amnesties for torture 10. The Committee remains concerned that, because the definition in article 235 of the criminal code restricts the prohibited practice of torture to the actions of law enforcement officials and does not cover acts by “other persons acting in an official capacity”, including those acts that result from the instigation, consent or acquiescence of a public official, it does not contain all the elements of article 1 of the Convention. The Committee welcomes the information that the Supreme Court issued decisions in 2004 and 2008 indicating that courts should use the definition of torture in article 1 of the Convention, but is concerned at reports that judges, investigators and law enforcement personnel continue to apply only the criminal code. The Committee is further concerned that the State party continues to award amnesties to individuals who have been convicted of violating article 235 of the criminal code (arts. 1 and 4). The Committee reiterates its previous recommendation that the State party adopts in its criminal code a definition of torture that reflects all of the elements contained in article 1 of the Convention. The State party should ensure that persons who act in an official capacity, as well as officials who consent to or acquiesce in torture perpetrated by third parties, are classified under the law as perpetrators of torture rather than, as is presently the case, persons who aid and abet torture. The practice of granting amnesties to persons convicted of torture or ill-treatment should be abolished, as outlined by the Committee in its general comments Nos. 2 (2007) on the implementation of article 2 by States parties and 3 (2012) on the implementation of article 14 by States parties, which affirm that amnesties for the crime of torture are incompatible with the obligations of States parties. The events in Andijan in 2005 11. The Committee remains concerned that there have been no full and effective investigations into the numerous claims of excessive use of force by officials during the events of May 2005 in Andijan. The Committee recalls that the acts of the Uzbek officials resulted, according to the State party, in 187 deaths and according to other sources, 700 or more deaths, as well as in numerous detentions, and that the Committee is not aware of cases in which law enforcement personnel were prosecuted for using excessive force against civilians, arbitrary detention, or torture and ill-treatment of persons taken into custody in connection with the events. The Committee further remains concerned that the State party has limited and obstructed, and therefore prevented, independent human rights monitoring in the aftermath of these events and has not permitted any independent 4