CCPR/C/122/D/2577/2015 5.10 Messrs. Kholikberdiyev and Mamadaliev were not attorneys of Mr. Formonov’s choosing. Mr. Kholikberdiyev was a court-appointed attorney whose services had been terminated by Mr. Formonov’s family because Mr. Kholikberdiyev had been present during the torture and had refused to submit any complaints regarding such torture. In contravention of Mr. Formonov’s express wishes, the court reappointed Mr. Kholikberdiyev to represent him during the trial. Mr. Mamadaliev was also a courtappointed attorney known to be under the influence of the Government. Mr. Formonov’s chosen representative was removed from the case by the court on the day that the trial took place, allegedly so that he could be called as a witness. However, during the trial that took place moments after his removal, Mr. Yakubov was not called to testify, thus illustrating that the court had replaced him without legitimate reason. 5.11 Mr. Formonov’s confession, obtained through torture, does not demonstrate the guilt of the accused but the violation of international law by the authorities who conducted the interrogation. Mr. Formonov had no opportunity to complain about the torture at any time prior to his conviction, but Mr. Yakubov and the author submitted complaints. Mr. Formonov was initially held incommunicado before he had access to a court-appointed attorney, who sanctioned the use of torture to obtain a confession by being present during such torture and refusing to file a complaint regarding this abuse. Mr. Formonov told Mr. Yakubov about the torture he had suffered. However, Mr. Yakubov was removed as representative prior to the trial and so was not given an opportunity to raise this issue before the court. Mr. Formonov himself was removed from the courtroom for at least part of the proceedings and was not permitted to cross-examine any witness, again denying him the ability to complain as to how the evidence had been collected. 5.12 The court hearing was closed to the public, as well as Mr. Formonov’s family, supporters and chosen representative. As the State party has admitted, even Mr. Formonov was not permitted to attend parts of his own trial, because he was removed after allegedly breaching the court’s order. His court-appointed attorneys, known to be under Government influence, were present. 5.13 In its reply, the State party fails to respond to the specific allegations regarding the violations of Mr. Formonov’s rights under article 14 of the Covenant, namely: (a) the right not to be compelled to confess guilt, by obtaining a confession through torture; (b) the right to have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence and to communicate with counsel of one’s own choosing, by holding Mr. Formonov incommunicado for one week following his arrest, by impeding access by Mr. Formonov’s chosen representative to prosecutorial documents and by removing the chosen representative in favour of court-appointed lawyers, who provided unprofessional and unethical legal advice; (c) the right to cross-examine witnesses, by holding an abridged trial of less than 30 minutes without any evidence or witnesses presented; (d) the right to a fair and public hearing by an impartial tribunal, by holding a closed trial wherein the presiding judge had been previously criticized by Mr. Formonov in his human rights pamphlets; and (e) the right to a presumption of innocence, by presenting him to the court in a cage. 5.14 Mr. Formonov’s torture was described in detail, including information on how he was tortured, who was present and the statements made during the torture. Post-conviction torture was also well detailed, including his placement in isolation cells, continual beatings that left him unable to walk for over a week, his placement in unheated cells in freezing temperatures that made him ill, his being strangled by prison authorities and threats of imprisonment of his children. In suggesting that torture allegations were made in order to denigrate the image of internal affairs agencies and their actions and to paint a negative image of the officers, without investigating such allegations, the State party ignores not only the specific and detailed accusations, but also the pattern of widespread and ungrounded torture in its criminal justice system, particularly against human rights defenders, as has been confirmed by, inter alia, the Committee against Torture (see CAT/C/UZB/CO/4, para. 8). Such accusations of bad faith also attempt to divert attention from the State party’s actions to actively conceal such torture by denying prison visits to Mr. Formonov in order to conceal his torture marks or by removing him from prison during visits by the Red Cross. 7