CCPR/C/120/D/2162/2012 examination of the merits of a case as legal basis for termination of the supervisory review procedure. 2.11 On 25 April 2011, 50 days after the arrest, the author’s brother received an indictment dated 22 April 2011, 8 in which he was formally accused of drug trafficking committed as part of an organized group. On 27 April, the Osh City Court prolonged his detention without indicating the legal basis for it. Neither the author’s brother nor his counsel was present at the hearing. The author submits that the domestic law does not provide an opportunity to appeal the decision of the Osh City Court concerning the remand in custody. The author submits that as of 25 April 2011, his brother’s remand in custody was based on the indictment issued on 22 April. The author claims that as of 25 April until the sentencing of his brother on 7 July, the detention was arbitrary and unlawful. 2.12 The first trial hearing took place on 12 May 2011 at the Osh City Court and on 7 July, the author’s brother was convicted of drug trafficking committed as part of an organized group and sentenced to nine years of imprisonment. The author requested a copy of the verdict in Russian. In August, he was informed that the translation would be provided after the payment of a translation fee. The author submits that the failure to provide the verdict in Russian constitutes a violation of his brother’s right to be informed of the charges against him in a language that he understands.9 2.13 On 15 July and 2 September 2011, the author and his brother each filed an appeal with the Osh Regional Court, which rejected it on 6 October. On 22 and 25 November, the author and his brother respectively filed requests for a supervisory review with the Supreme Court of Kyrgyzstan. The author’s motion was not reviewed while his brother’s was rejected, both by decision of the Supreme Court of 9 February 2012. 2.14 On 22 May 2012, the author’s brother was transferred from pretrial detention facility No. 5 in Osh to correctional colony No. 10 in Jalal Abad to continue serving his sentence. On 19 July, the author was informed by a State bailiff that, in accordance with the sentence, a confiscation of his brother’s property, in particular his apartment, would be carried out. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that his brother is a victim of violations of his rights under article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a), of the Covenant as during the first three days following his detention he was tortured by officers to make him confess. 3.2 The author further claims that article 9 (1) was violated, as his brother was detained at 2 p.m. on 25 February 2011 without being informed of the reasons, and the detention protocol was drawn up only at 11.40 p.m. of the same day.10 3.3 The author claims a violation of his brother’s rights under articles 9 (2) and 14 (3) (a) and (f) as, being a native Russian speaker, he could not understand the indictment, which was available only in Kyrgyz, was not promptly informed of the charges against him and did not receive a copy of the verdict translated into Russian. 3.4 The author claims that his brother’s rights under article 9 (3) were violated, as the decision of 27 February 2011 by which the Osh City Court ordered his remand in custody had no legal basis and the Court did not consider alternative measures of restraint.11 3.5 Articles 9 (4) and 14 (5) of the Covenant were violated because the author’s brother was deprived of his right to challenge the lawfulness of his detention at the Supreme Court. The author claims that as of 25 April 2011 until the sentencing of his brother on 7 July, the 8 9 10 11 4 The author does not provide a copy and does not mention the body which issued the indictment decision. A copy of the verdict of 7 July 2011 translated into the Russian language on 24 August 2011 is part of the file. The author refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence in communication No. 1348/2005, Ashurov v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on 20 March 2007, para. 6.4. The author refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence in Hill v. Spain to support his argument that pretrial detention should be the exception. See communication No. 526/1993, Views adopted on 2 April 1997, para. 12.3.