CAT/C/50/D/463/2011 demonstrators were attacked from helicopters and military aircraft has not been confirmed by any report. Therefore, owing to his vague and inaccurate description of the circumstances, he has not credibly established that he was present during the events in Andizjan. 4.12 The complainant also modified his statement concerning his trial. During the second interview before the Migration Board, he said he was imprisoned with no lawyer being appointed or a trial being held. During the oral hearing before the Migration Court, he stated that a trial was held, but that the hearing took place behind closed doors. 4.13 Before the Migration Board, the complainant submitted that he was subjected to physical mistreatment by the prison guards in the Kashkadarya prison, whereas at the oral hearing before the Migration Court, he stated that he was tortured and that prison guards used chairs and bottles as weapons. Likewise, in his written submission to the Migration Board, he stated that he was occasionally physically mistreated, threatened and humiliated by the police while fulfilling his obligation to report to the police; however, at the Court’s oral hearing he held that he was harassed and humiliated by the police on each occasion he appeared before the police authorities. Thus, the treatment to which he was allegedly subjected to was described in increasingly strong terms during the course of the proceedings. This fact reduces the credibility of the complainant’s claim in this regard. 4.14 In the light of the above and the inconsistencies and contradictions contained in the complainant’s statement to the State party’s authorities, as well as the vagueness regarding central elements of his asylum story and the fact that he produced false documents regarding his identity, it cannot be concluded that the author would be at risk of treatment contrary to the Convention, if returned to Uzbekistan. The complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 15 February 2012, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party observations. 5.2 He points out that there is a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights in Uzbekistan. The risk of being tortured in arrest or detention is overwhelming. Security officers and the police routinely beat or mistreat detainees to obtain confessions or incriminating information. According to Human Rights Watch, the Government continues to refuse to investigate the 2005 events in Andizjan or to prosecute those responsible. The authorities persecute anyone that they suspected of having participated in or witnessed the atrocities. On 30 April 2011, Ms. D.A., an Andizjan refugee who returned to Uzbekistan in January 2010, was sentence to 10 years and 2 months in prison for illegal border crossing and anti-constitutional activity, despite assurances made to her family that she would not be harmed if returned.5 Persons who return to Uzbekistan and are brought to court are held in incommunicado detention, thereby increasing their risk of being tortured or otherwise illtreated; and are subjected to unfair trial.6 Furthermore, the Uzbek Government uses the socalled “mahalla system”, in which local committees are in charge of controlling and identifying for the police persons that appear suspicious, in particular if they are amnestied prisoners or relatives of individuals jailed for alleged extremism.7 5.3 The complainant contests the State party’s assertion that it applied the Convention’s test when considering his asylum application. The Migration Board and Court focused most of their examination on the sole fact that he presented false documents of his identity upon 5 6 7 8 T he complaint refers to 2011 Human Rights Watch Report. T he complaint refers to 2009 Amnesty International’s report, submitted to the Human Rights Committee. T he complaint refers to 2008 United States, Department of State, “ Human Right s Report – Uzbekistan”.