CAT/C/54/D/538/2013 obligation was aggravated by its failure to respect the Committee’s request not to extradite the complainant while his case is under consideration. 3 5.6 Further, counsel contends that the State party ignored appeals from NGOs and international organizations not to extradite the complainant. She refers, in particular, to the letter dated January 2013 from the NGO Kazakhstan International Bureau of Human Rights and Rule of Law, in which the complainant’s case was compared to that of 29 asylum seekers extradited by Kazakhstan to Uzbekistan in 2011. The NGO also referred to multiple pieces of evidence indicating that people have been tortured on religious grounds in Uzbekistan, and urged the authorities to suspend the extradition. 5.7 Counsel additionally emphasizes that Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are both members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Collective Security Treaty Organization, both of which have established lists of terrorist, extremist and separatist organizations and persons. These lists are not subject to judicial review and the names are added to them arbitrarily. She also refers to the Committee’s concluding observations on the second and third periodic reports of Uzbekistan, in which the Committee expressed its concern about the widespread use of torture by police and in prisons in Uzbekistan (CAT/C/CR/28/7 and CAT/C/UZB/CO/3). 5.8 Counsel invites the Committee to find that extradition of the complainant constitutes a violation of article 3 of the Convention and to recommend that the State party provide the complainant with adequate compensation, return him to Kazakhstan and avoid similar violations in the future. Additional information by the State party 6.1 On 11 March 2013, the State party reiterated that the claims regarding unlawful extradition of the complainant and unjustified rejection of his asylum claim are groundless. According to the national legislation, the courts can only consider a claim on substance and are not in a position to raise matters on their own initiative. They could not have reviewed the decision of the Committee on Migration regarding the complainant’s asylum application, which the complainant did not appeal before the relevant courts. Taking into account that the decision of the domestic courts concerning the complainant’s extradition became final, that the complainant did not appeal the decision of the Committee to turn down his application, and given the threat he could pose to the national security and interests of Kazakhstan, he was transferred to Uzbekistan under the Minsk Convention. 6.2 The claim that the extradition took place against the recommendations of UNHCR is erroneous. On 12 June 2012, the Office of the Procurator General received a note verbale from the UNHCR Regional Office, in which UNHCR expressed disagreement with the Committee on Migration to turn down the complainant’s asylum application and recommended granting him international protection. However, in a note verbale dated 10 October 2012, the UNHCR Regional Office informed the Office of the Procurator General that it would leave the decision on extradition of the complainant to the State party. 6.3 After receiving the note verbale from UNHCR, the State party requested the assurances of the Uzbek authorities that the complainant would not be persecuted for political motives or for reasons of race, religion, nationality or political opinion; that he would not be subjected to torture, violence or inhuman or degrading treatment; and that he would be provided with the means to defend himself, including through legal assistance. The said guarantees were received and the State party does not have grounds for doubting 3 6 Counsel compares the extradition of the complainant to the extradition of 29 persons from Kazakhstan to Uzbekistan in 2011, regardless of the Committee’s request to suspend the procedure.