CCPR/C/118/D/2317/2013 2.9 From 4 May 2009, the author’s family submitted numerous complaints — about the author’s ill-treatment, the failure to transfer him to prison from the detention facility and the authorities’ refusal to allow the family and the lawyer to visit him — to the Prosecutor General’s Office, the chief directorate for the enforcement of punishment, the Tashkent City police department, the National Security Service, the Supreme Court, the Ombudsman, the Cabinet of Ministers, the Ministry of Justice and the parliament, among others. The replies the family received from the State institutions briefly stated that the author’s sentence was in accordance with the law and justified. The allegations of torture were not addressed. 2.10 The author’s wife also submitted several claims to the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Supreme Court, the Ombudsman, the President and the Government of Uzbekistan, challenging the court decisions relating to the author as unlawful and unfounded. On 22 June 2009, the Prosecutor General’s Office dismissed her claim on the grounds that the courts had acted in accordance with the law, had correctly established the relevant facts and qualified the offence, and had imposed an adequate penalty. The Tashkent City Court and the Supreme Court dismissed her claims on the same grounds on 10 and 28 December 2009, respectively. 2.11 On 4 May 2011, the author was conditionally released on the basis of a court decision. In March 2012, the term of the conditional release ended. On 5 August 2012, the author arrived in Kyiv and applied for refugee status. From 2 to 23 October 2012, the author was treated in a public hospital in Kyiv, diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic prostatitis and varicose veins travelling in the right spermatic cord. The author was treated in the same hospital from 27 August to 6 September 2013 due to the worsening of his mental condition (stress disorder with psychotic symptoms, together with cerebral dysfunction). The complaint 3.1 The author alleges that he was subjected to torture while held in pretrial detention facility No. 64/1 in Tashkent and that since he had no contact with the outside world, no remedies were available to him. He claims a violation of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 of the Covenant, in this regard. 3.2 The author alleges that the State party violated article 9 of the Covenant by holding him from 25 to 29 December 2008 in pretrial detention facility No. 64/1 without a proper arrest order, by holding him in incommunicado detention from 8 February to 4 May 2009 in detention facility No. 64/1 and by keeping him in the pretrial detention facility for months instead of transferring him to prison within 10 days after the final court verdict was received by the administration of the pretrial detention facility, in violation of national legislation. 3.3. The Committee considers that the author’s claim that it was impossible for his family and lawyer to visit him in the pretrial detention facility until 4 May 2009 also appears to raise issues under article 10 (1) of the Covenant. 3.4 The author claims that his rights under article 14 of the Covenant were violated because he had no meeting with his lawyer before the trial; because he was convicted despite the fact that the victims had withdrawn their complaints and confirmed during the court hearing that they had no claims against the author; and because the court did not provide any explanation for having established his guilt under article 135 (2) (b), (e), (f), (h) and (i) of the Criminal Code. The author claims that he had never before been convicted for trafficking in persons and was not a recidivist (art. 135 (2) (e)); that he had no prior agreement with others and that the owners of the recruitment agency that arranged the employment of the victims in the Russian Federation were never charged or brought to the 4 GE.17-01270