CCPR/C/128/D/2689/2015 delay in the trial and that the court did not allow her to have a witness questioned during the trial.12 3.3 The author claims that, by dismissing her from the university before the Court had delivered its ruling, the State party has violated her right to the presumption of innocence as encapsulated in article 14 (2) of the Covenant. 3.4 The author requests that the Committee ask the State party to conduct a proper judicial review of her complaints. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 21 January 2016, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and the merits of the communication. It notes that, on 27 October 2014, the Criminal Court of Bukhara City found the author guilty of violating article 214 of the Criminal Code and imposed a fine equal to 25 times the monthly minimum wage in Uzbekistan, equalling 2,402,625 sum. 4.2 On 5 December 2014, the Court of Appeal of Bukhara Region dismissed the author’s appeal. By virtue of an amnesty act, the author was absolved by the court from paying the fine. 4.3 The State party notes that the court learned that the author, a professor in the RomanoGermanic philology faculty of Bukhara State University, extorted $200 from N.B. in exchange for assistance in the process of defending her thesis. The author was apprehended by law enforcement officers on 9 June 2014, upon her receipt of the money. The same day, the Office of the Prosecutor of Bukhara Region initiated a criminal case against her under article 214 of the Criminal Code. The author was interrogated as a suspect, and she confessed to having received $200 from N.B. 4.4 On 11 June 2014, the criminal case was submitted to the Department of Internal Affairs of Bukhara City for further investigation. In the context of the investigation, N.B. was given victim status, and she testified against the author, claiming that, on 7 June 2014, the latter had demanded $200 in exchange for the arrangement of a successful thesis defence. N.B. filed a complaint against the author with the Office of the Prosecutor of Bukhara City. 4.5 On 12 August 2014, the criminal case relating to the charges under article 214 of the Criminal Code against the author was brought to court. 4.6 The State party notes that the author’s guilt was fully proven, given the report on the results of the special operation conducted by law enforcement authorities, video materials, physical evidence, the report of the forensic chemical examination, the testimony of witnesses and other materials pertaining to the case. 4.7 The State party also notes that, in the course of the judicial investigation, no violations of the norms of the criminal procedural legislation or of the rights and legitimate interests of the author, nor any use of unauthorized methods of investigation, were revealed. 4.8 The State party concludes that the author’s claims are unfounded. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 21 March 2016, the author commented on the State party’s observations on the admissibility and the merits of the communication. She notes that, on 11 March 2016, her mother passed away. Given that she was suffering from that loss, she was unable to translate all complaints that she referred to in her communication into Russian, due to unexpected expenses that had arisen. 5.2 The author submits that the witnesses and victim in the case testified under pressure and that the domestic courts rejected multiple motions from her during the proceedings, in violation of the Criminal Procedure Code of Uzbekistan. In that context, she reiterates her disagreement with the court’s appraisal of the evidence, noting that it was one-sided and 12 4 The author submits that the delay of four months included two months of investigation and two months of trial proceedings.