CAT/C/54/D/538/2013 political grounds, or for reasons of race, religion or nationality; 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 the assistance of lawyers. 4.3 The State party submits that there were no procedural violations in the complainant’s case and there are no grounds for returning him to Kazakhstan. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 5.1 On 22 December 2013, counsel informed the Committee that, upon extradition to Uzbekistan, on 6 June 2013, the complainant was sentenced to 16 years in prison on charges of terrorism, founding religious-extremist, separatist and fundamentalist organizations as part of an organized group, attempting to overthrow the constitutional order and illegally exiting the country. The trial took only three and a half months, which suggests that it was not fair. According to the relatives and the lawyer of the complainant, he was forced, under torture, to confess to the charges and, allegedly owing to the torture suffered, he did not try to defend himself in court. On 6 September 2013, the Qashqadarinsky Regional Court reviewed the cassation appeal of the complainant and confirmed the decision of the first instance court. 5.2 Counsel informs that the complainant is detained with a person infected with tuberculosis. It is possible that he has contracted the disease himself, but does not receive medical treatment. Since the beginning of his imprisonment, the complainant has been sanctioned twice for breaching the internal rules of the penitentiary colony, which could exclude a possibility of an amnesty in the future, and he was also incarcerated in a punishment cell.1 5.3 Counsel reiterates that the decision of the Committee on Migration to reject the complainant’s asylum application was groundless and unlawful. While considering the complainant’s asylum request, the Committee failed to duly take into account the facts and arguments provided in his application concerning the persecution to which he and his wife were subjected, or the torture he suffered in Uzbekistan owing to his religious beliefs.2 The domestic courts that considered the complainant’s extradition appeal should have indicated an error in the assessment of the Committee and quashed its decision. 5.4 Counsel points out a contradiction in the State party’s submission concerning the position of UNHCR. According to the State party, UNHCR disagreed with the decision to turn down the complainant’s asylum application, but then, according to the State party, it agreed with the decision to have him extradited. Counsel states that such a change of attitude would contradict the mandate of the organization. 5.5 Regarding the argument of the State party that the extradition was based on the Minsk Convention and was in accordance with its national and international obligations, counsel claims that the State party breached its obligations under article 3 of the Convention, in which guarantees are set out against refoulement. According to counsel, this provision should be interpreted narrowly and cannot be overridden by the national or regional instruments to which the State party refers. The breach of the State party’s 1 2 Counsel explains that in such cells prisoners receive three meals a day, with no water or additional food in between. They are forced to wake up at 5 a.m., then the guards fold the metallic beds so that the detainees cannot rest during the day. There is only a small chair and a toilet in the cell; detainees can wash their hands only with the toilet water. They are taken outside to wash their hands and face only once a day, in the morning. The cell is damp and cold, but prisoners are allowed to wear warm clothes only if it gets very cold outside. There is no medical assistance, even if a person gets sick. Counsel refers to the facts submitted to the Committee on 14 February 2013. 5