CCPR/C/118/D/2317/2013 court hearing as witnesses (art. 135 (2) (f)); that he had not transferred the victims across the border or held them against their will abroad (art. 135 (2) (h)); and that he had not used false documents or seized or destroyed the identity documents of the victims (art. 135 (2) (i)). State party’s observations on admissibility 4. In a note verbale dated 30 December 2013, the State party submitted its observations, arguing that the communication was inadmissible. According to the State party, the author has not raised the issues under articles 7, 9 and 14 of the Covenant at the domestic level, nor has he appealed his sentence to the Supreme Court. The State party further submits that the author’s complaints to the domestic authorities were based on the provisions of national legislation and not on the articles of the Covenant. According to the State party, the submission is unsubstantiated for the purpose of admissibility and all of the author’s arguments refer to the evaluation of facts and evidence and interpretation of national legislation. The author provided no reasons as to why the evaluation of facts and evidence by the domestic authorities and courts was in violation of the provisions of the Covenant and amounted to a denial of justice. In fact, the author is asking the Committee to act as a judicial authority and to consider his submission in the light of the national legislation, which the Committee is not in a position to do. The State party states that the author’s claims are incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant and that, in the light of the above observations, the communication should be considered inadmissible. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5. In a letter dated 3 March 2014, the author commented on the observations of the State party. He submits that he was kept in incommunicado detention and did not have access to a lawyer from February 2009 to 4 May 2009. Because of this and due to the torture he was subjected to in detention and the threats he received, he had no opportunity to submit a complaint to the State authorities. However, his family lodged a complaint as soon as they found out about the torture he had experienced. The author claims that the State party has an obligation to carry out an effective investigation into allegations of torture even if the alleged victim has not filed an official complaint. 1 State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 21 March 2014, the State party submitted additional observations, stating that the author’s allegations concerning his unlawful detention and torture had been thoroughly considered and found groundless. 6.2 The State party describes the facts of the author’s criminal case and states that the author’s conviction was based on the complaints submitted by the victims and that his guilt was established during the investigation on the basis of testimonies from victims and witnesses, confrontation records and other objective evidence, and that his actions under article 135 (2) (b), (e), (f), (h) and (i) of the Criminal Code were correctly qualified by the court. On 4 May 2011, the author was conditionally released by the decision of the Karman District Court in Navoi region. 6.3 Addressing the author’s allegation about unlawful detention between 25 and 29 December 2008, the State party clarifies that on 25 December 2008, the author was informed that he was suspected of having committed a criminal offence under articles 168 (2) (fraud) and 153 (3) (trafficking in persons) of the Criminal Code. On 26 December 2008, 1 GE.17-01270 The author refers to Committee against Torture communications No. 6/1990, Unai Parot v. Spain, Views adopted on 2 May 1995, para. 10.4; and No. 59/1996, Blanco Abad v. Spain, Views adopted on 14 May 1998, para. 8.6. 5