CCPR/C/118/D/2317/2013 9.2 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. 9.3 The Committee notes the author’s claims under article 9 of the Covenant that he was detained unlawfully from 25 to 29 December 2008 at the Chilanzar district police office. It also notes the author’s complaint under article 14 of the Covenant concerning the lack of access to a lawyer of his choice before the trial. The Committee further notes the State party’s general observation that the author did not raise before the courts the claims he raised before the Committee and thus has not exhausted domestic remedies. The material before the Committee supports the State party’s position that the author failed to raise before the national courts the claims relating to the initial period of detention and access to a lawyer of his choice. The Committee therefore considers that this part of the complaint is inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 9.4 The Committee notes the author’s claims concerning a violation of his right to fair trial under article 14 of the Covenant in relation to his conviction under article 135 (2) (b), (e), (f), (h) and (i) of the Criminal Code. It also notes the corresponding argument of the State party that the author appealed the trial court judgment to the Supreme Court, but withdrew the appeal before the latter Court had taken a decision. In the absence of an adequate explanation by the author for his failure to exhaust the appeal proceedings, and in the absence of information on the nature of the cassation proceedings pursued on behalf of the author and its relationship to the appeal proceedings, the Committee is not able to find that the author has exhausted domestic remedies with respect to his claims under article 14 of the Covenant. The Committee thus considers that this part of the complaint is also inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 9.5 The Committee notes the author’s claim concerning his treatment in pretrial detention facility No. 64/1, his allegations that his family and lawyer were not allowed to visit him while he was detained there, and that he was not promptly transferred from a pretrial detention facility to prison, as prescribed by national legislation. The Committee observes that the author’s relatives have repeatedly raised these matters in their complaints to various State authorities, including the Tashkent City Court and the Supreme Court, to no avail. The Committee also notes the author’s allegation that he himself could not complain of the ill-treatment while in detention owing to the threats against him and his family. In the absence of information from the State party on any effective remedies that would have been available to the author relating to his treatment while in detention, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from considering the merits of this part of the author’s claims under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2, and articles 9 and 10 (1) of the Covenant. 9.6 The Committee considers that the author’s claims under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2, and the remaining claims under articles 9 and 10 (1) of the Covenant have been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility, and proceeds to consider the communication on its merits. Considerations of the merits 10.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 10.2 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegation of torture in the police’s pretrial detention facility No. 64/1 in Tashkent from February to August 2009. The Committee notes the observations of the State party that, following a complaint from the author’s brother dated 8 May 2009, the chief directorate for the enforcement of punishment carried out an investigation but did not find any proof of the allegations of ill-treatment. It also 8 GE.17-01270