CCPR/C/120/D/2162/2012 detention was arbitrary and unlawful as it was based only on the indictment and the transmittal of the case to the first instance court. He claims that the decision of the Supreme Court of 19 May 2011 to refuse to review his claim regarding the lawfulness of the detention of his brother is a violation of his brother’s rights under articles 9 (4) and 14 (5). 3.6 The author claims a violation of his brother’s rights under article 14 (1) as the composition of the Osh Regional Court was not in accordance with domestic law. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 4 October 2012, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits. It submits that on 7 July 2011, the author’s brother was convicted of a crime under article 274 (2) 1) and 2) of the Criminal Code and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. On 25 February 2011, police officers had arrested him for possession of heroin during an action undertaken by the Southern Regional Office for Combating Drug Trafficking of the Department of Internal Affairs of Kyrgyzstan. On 23 April, the pretrial investigation was completed and the case was transmitted to the trial court. On 6 October, the Osh Regional Court rejected the appeal filed against the trial court’s decision of 7 July. Based on article 4 (1) 3) of the amnesty law adopted on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the independence of Kyrgyzstan, the unserved term of punishment was reduced to one third. On 9 February 2012, the Supreme Court rejected the request for a supervisory review filed by the author’s brother against the Osh Regional Court decision of 6 October 2011. 4.2 The State party further submits that the author’s brother’s counsel appealed the decision of the Osh City Court of 27 February 2011 to the Osh Regional Court, which, sitting in a three-judge panel, rejected the appeal on 22 March. The State party rejects the claim that the composition of the Osh Regional Court violated article 132-1 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which foresees a single-judge hearing. It submits that the composition of the Osh Regional Court at the cassation stage was in compliance with article 31 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, according to which the cassation courts decide upon appeals in criminal cases sitting in a panel of three judges. 4.3 On 19 May 2011, the Supreme Court discontinued the supervisory review initiated by the author’s brother’s counsel, as the pretrial investigation had been concluded and on 12 May, the Osh City Court had begun examining the case on the merits. As to the claims that pretrial detention should be the exception, that the decision of the Osh City Court dated 27 February 2011 had no legal basis and that the Court did not consider alternative measures of restraint, the State party maintains that based on article 267 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court can change or cancel a pretrial restraining order; the court is not obliged to motivate its decision in this regard. 4.4 The State party further submits that the Supreme Court terminated the supervisory review proceedings because the first instance court took a new decision and therefore there was no further need to continue the supervisory review. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 10 December 2012, the author reiterated its initial submission. He maintains that his brother was subjected to torture and threats (cruel treatment) from the moment of his apprehension at 2 p.m. till 11.40 p.m. on 25 February 2011, which led to his selfincrimination. He states that the State party did not rebut these allegations or provide explanations as to how, when and which organ might have investigated the alleged torture. 5.2 The author submits that the State party did not respond to his claim under article 9 (4) as to the lack of timely proceedings before a court to decide without delay on the lawfulness of his brother’s detention and reiterates the arguments from the initial submission. He states that the mere fact that supervisory review proceedings were initiated in response to counsel’s petition indicates that the Supreme Court had sufficient elements to quash the detention on remand and apply a different restraint measure. 5.3 The author maintains that his brother was unfairly sentenced for a crime related to possession of drugs and the courts disregarded his arguments, in violation of article 14 of 5