CCPR/C/123/D/2189/2012 State party’s further submissions 6.1 By a note verbale of 30 July 2015, the State party reiterated its previous submissions. It adds that the Office of the Prosecutor General of Uzbekistan has submitted an additional extradition request on an unspecified date, whereby the author was sought on aggravated murder and robbery charges under articles 97 (2), 25 and 164 (4) of the Uzbek Criminal Code. When deciding to extradite the author, the domestic authorities took into account the fact that Uzbekistan is a party to international treaties, including the Covenant and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the assurances provided by Uzbekistan that he would not be subjected to persecution, torture, violence or inhuman or degrading treatment; that his right to defend himself would be ensured, including through the assistance of a lawyer; and that he would be prosecuted in line with Uzbek legislation. The author’s claim that he had an alibi for the period concerned was not examined during the extradition procedure since the determination of guilt is an exclusive prerogative of the Uzbek competent authorities. According to article 463 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the course of extradition proceedings, the court shall not discuss whether the person concerned is guilty but shall restrict itself to checking whether the decision to extradite is in compliance with the legislation of the Russian Federation and the international treaties to which it is a party. 6.2 The author’s claim that he would be subjected to torture and inhuman treatment and that the criminal proceedings against him in Uzbekistan are politically motivated are not supported by evidence; he might have made up these claims in order to avoid criminal liability in Uzbekistan. On the other hand, his claims were thoroughly examined by the competent authorities and courts in the course of the extradition and refugee proceedings and were not confirmed. The lack of substantiation of his claims is confirmed by the circumstances of his conviction and the penalty laid down in Uzbekistan that the Uzbek authorities communicated to the State party. On 6 June 2015, the Tashkent city court found the author guilty of murder, robbery and fraud under articles 97 (2), 25, 164 (4) and 168 (3) of the Uzbek Criminal Code and sentenced him to 18 years’ imprisonment. His prison term was reduced by one quarter on three occasions, by virtue of amnesty. On 6 February 2015, he was transferred to another colony. He has been subject to regular medical check-ups. No health issues have been identified. Neither the author nor his relatives have submitted complaints throughout his prison term. The author has received 16 short and 6 long visits from relatives. No violence or psychological pressure has been used. 6.3 In the light of the above, the State party concludes that the author has been treated with humanity in Uzbekistan. He was transferred to a colony with a milder regime and has been serving his prison term there. There are no grounds to believe that after the author’s extradition to Uzbekistan, he was subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Author’s further submissions 7.1 On 25 October 2015, the author noted that the proceedings on refugee status determination and the court review of the decision to extradite him to Uzbekistan were done in a formalistic manner. He adds that the risk of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan was not duly assessed in the course of the extradition proceedings. 7.2 With reference to the annual report of Amnesty International for 2014–2015, the author emphasizes that the use of torture by law enforcement officials is widespread in Uzbekistan and that forced returnees are exposed to a real risk of torture and other forms of ill-treatment. The authorities continue to deny reports of torture and have failed to effectively investigate them, implement existing laws and safeguards and adopt new measures to prevent torture. There is no independent monitoring in place to inspect all places of detention and NGOs are prevented from conducting prison monitoring. 7 The author stresses that this information is objective and independent, while the State party’s submissions rely on information provided by Uzbekistan, which is an interested party. 7 6 Amnesty International, The State of the World’s Human Rights, pp. 399–400.