CAT/C/54/D/538/2013 first instance court were unfair because an interpreter was not provided to him after he stated that he did not speak Russian. In their decisions, both courts stated that it is beyond their jurisdiction to review the legality of charges brought against the complainant in a foreign country and that their role is to assess whether the extradition is in accordance with the national legislation and international obligations of Kazakhstan. The courts also stated that the complainant’s request for asylum was denied by the Committee on Migration in 2010 and did not assess further his allegations of a risk of torture upon extradition. Regarding the complainant’s complaint on the failure of the first instance court to provide him with interpretation, the Aktobe Regional Court stated that the records of the first instance court proceedings suggest that neither the complainant nor his lawyer requested interpretation, despite being informed of this right by the court. 2.5 On 13 March 2013, the complainant was extradited to Uzbekistan in spite of the Committee’s request for interim measures of protection aimed at suspending the extradition pending the consideration of the present case. On 12 April 2013, the complainant’s counsel informed the Committee that the complainant was imprisoned in Uzbekistan. She asked the Committee to appeal to the State party’s authorities to have the complainant sent back to Kazakhstan. The complaint 3. When submitting the communication, the complainant claimed that his extradition to Uzbekistan would be in violation of article 3 of the Convention, as he would be subjected to torture there and would be imprisoned for a long period of time on the basis of fabricated charges. He states that Uzbekistan is well-known for practising torture in police and penitentiary facilities, including on extradited asylum seekers, as was the case with 29 Uzbek citizens extradited by Kazakhstan in 2011. State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 On 27 June 2013, the State party submitted its observations on the merits, informing the Committee that, on 3 May 2012, the Aktobe Court No. 2 approved the detention of the complainant for the purpose of extradition. On 4 May 2012, the Office of the Procurator General of Uzbekistan requested the State party to extradite the complainant for the purpose of criminal prosecution. On 6 October 2009, the Committee on Migration rejected the complainant’s application for asylum. On 12 June 2012, UNHCR sent a note verbale to the Office of the Procurator General of Kazakhstan, expressing its disagreement with the decision of the Committee on Migration to turn down the application for asylum in view of procedural violations that took place during the consideration of the complainant’s asylum request. According to the State party, the complainant was informed of his right to appeal the decision concerning his request for asylum, but he did not exercise that right. On 25 October 2012, the Office of the Procurator General made a decision to extradite the complainant to Uzbekistan. On 25 December 2012 and on 18 January 2013, respectively, the Aktobe City Court No. 2 and the Aktobe Regional Court assessed whether the extradition was in accordance with the national and international obligations of Kazakhstan. The State party submits that UNHCR agreed with the decision to extradite the complainant to Uzbekistan. The extradition took place on 13 March 2013. Taking into account that the complainant’s appeal against the decision to extradite him was reviewed by all available judicial instances, whose decisions became final, and that he did not appeal the decision to refuse his asylum request, there were no legal grounds for his stay in Kazakhstan, which could be endangering national interests and security. 4.2 The complainant was extradited in accordance with the provisions of the Minsk Convention. In addition, the Uzbek authorities provided written assurances to the Office of the Procurator General of Kazakhstan that the complainant would not be persecuted on 4