CCPR/C/123/D/2189/2012 7.3 With regard to the visits he has received while in prison, the author notes that the State party has failed to specify which authorities visited him and if they had the experience to effectively monitor the implementation of the assurances given by Uzbekistan, nor has the State party provided guarantees that those authorities could converse with the author without witnesses. There is no mechanism in place to allow for a complaint to be filed through visiting authorities or to allow them unrestricted access to prisons. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the State party’s diplomats in Uzbekistan, if they have paid visits to the author in prison, have the necessary experience to monitor the implementation of the assurances given by Uzbekistan and that the author could converse with them confidentially and without witnesses. There is no agreement between the State party and Uzbekistan to allow for monitoring the assurances given by the latter, remedying violations, or identifying those responsible and bringing them to justice. 7.4 The author further refers to the findings of the European Court of Human Rights that diplomatic assurances by countries where, according to reliable sources, ill-treatment is used widely and systematically, cannot be considered a sufficient guarantee against the risk of ill-treatment. 8 In such cases, the domestic courts should critically assess diplomatic assurances and other similar “information from official sources”.9 7.5 Concerning the obligation of the Uzbek authorities to allow the State party’s diplomats access to the author in prison, the author claims that such monitoring cannot be considered sufficient for the following reasons. First, the Office of the Uzbek Prosecutor General provided no information and guarantees as to the confidentiality of meetings between the author and Russian diplomats. Second, there is no effective mechanism for monitoring the author’s health in prison, as the Uzbek authorities have provided no information regarding the availability of independent medical experts. Third, the State party’s diplomats lack independence, as if they establish that the author has been subjected to ill-treatment, they would have to acknowledge that the State party has breached its international obligations. Fourth, the assurances provided by Uzbekistan do not contain any information as to its responsibility in the event of failure to comply with its assurances and its readiness to provide legal assistance to the State party in similar circumstances in the future does not cover such a responsibility. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 8.2 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. 8.3 The Committee notes that it is undisputed by the State party that the author has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to him. In the circumstances, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 8.4 The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated his claims under articles 7 and 9 of the Covenant for the purposes of admissibility and proceeds to their examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8 9 Makhmudzhan Ergashev v. Russia, application No. 49747/11, judgment of 16 October 2012, para. 74. Azimov v. Russia, application no. 67474/11, judgment of 18 April 2013, para. 133. 7