CCPR/C/118/D/2106/2011 Prosecutor’s Office continued to insist that the guilt of V.S. had been fully proven. They maintain that the retrial of V.S. in 2010 was limited to taking his and V.L.’s testimonies in the presence of a lawyer; they both denied their guilt, but the court did not verify any of the other evidence. The court convicted V.S. for a second time on 19 November 2010 and the appellate instance confirmed the verdict on 22 December 2010. The authors describe and contest the evidence that the court used in assessing the guilt of V.S. They submit that the General Prosecutor’s request for a supervisory review in 2011 also stated that the guilt of V.L. had been established and maintained that his retrial would be as unproductive as the one for V.S.3 5.4 On 10 April 2012, the authors submitted that on 26 March 2012, the Tashkent Regional Court convicted V.L. to eight years of imprisonment, reducing the sentence issued in 2008 by six months. The authors submit that the trial was a “theatre play” for the Committee. The hearings took place between 10 February 2012 and 26 March 2012. The authors were refused permission to film the hearings, allegedly for technical reasons. The prosecutor slept during the hearings, for her closing statement she repeated the closing statement of the prosecutor from 2008 and in addition she requested that the conviction be increased to nine years’ imprisonment. V.L.’s attorney made an oral statement and provided a copy to the court, but in the verdict the judge stated that no statement had been made by the defence. The authors describe further evidence and the alleged failure of the court to properly assess it and establish the innocence of V.L. They allege that in the verdict the judge made reference to evidence that was not in fact presented during the hearings. 4 Even though the Supreme Court had recognized that the confessions given by V.S. and V.L. were invalid and revoked the original verdict for that reason, the judge based the new verdict on the same confessions. The authors also submit that the health of V.S. and V.L. has significantly deteriorated while in detention. State party’s observations 6. On 5 January 2015, the State party resubmitted its observations provided on 30 November 2011. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the claim is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes that the State party has not objected to the admissibility of the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. The Committee considers that it is not precluded by the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the present communication. 7.4 The Committee takes note of the authors’ claims that the rights of their son and nephew under article 14 of the Covenant were violated during the initial proceedings, because the lawyer initially representing V.S. and V.L. had previously represented the 3 4 The authors provide copies of court records from the initial trial and evidence that V.S.’s attorney presented to the court of first instance in 2010. A copy of the verdict is provided by the authors. 5