CCPR/C/128/D/2689/2015 favoured the victim, and that therefore her rights under article 14 of the Covenant were violated. 5.3 The author maintains that her right to legal assistance during the interrogation, as envisaged by the article 14 (3) of the Covenant, was violated. She reiterates that she was subjected to ill-treatment by the investigator, who threatened her with physical abuse and spoke to her very rudely. 5.4 The author claims that the trial suffered from an undue delay, contrary to article 14 (3) of the Covenant, and that her right to be presumed innocent was breached by the State party, in violation of article 14 (2) of the Covenant. She requests that the order of her dismissal issued by Bukhara State University be revoked. 5.5 The author reiterates her requests to the Committee to ask the State party to conduct a proper judicial review of her complaints, to overturn the judgments and to provide her with an effective remedy. State party’s additional observations 6.1 In a note verbale of 12 May 2016, the State party addressed the author’s comments. It rejects her claims and reiterates that she was apprehended by law enforcement officers on 9 June 2014, when she received money from N.B. The State party concludes that the author’s guilt was fully proven in Court and that the Court ruling was based on an appraisal of video materials, physical evidence, the report of the forensic chemical examination, the testimony of witnesses and other materials pertaining to the case. 6.2 The State party reiterates its earlier arguments and concludes that the author’s claims are groundless. Additional comments from the author 7.1 The author submitted a series of additional comments. Regarding her dismissal, she provides copies of the replies received from various State institutions, including the Office of the Prosecutor of Bukhara Region, the Council of the Federation of Trade Unions of Uzbekistan, the Council of the Federation of Trade Unions of Bukhara Region and the Ministry of Higher and Secondary-Specialized Education of Uzbekistan, in all of which it was noted that the dismissal of the author by the university was in line with the Labour Code. 7.2 The author notes that, in July 2017, she had a meeting at the Office of the Prosecutor of Bukhara City, at which she was informed of the decision of Bukhara State University to employ her as a teacher of Russian language and literature. The author accepted the offer as a temporary solution, given that there was no vacancy in the Romano-Germanic philology faculty of the university. 7.3 In the communication submitted on 15 August 2018, the author notes that, as at 23 September 2017, she had begun work as a French language teacher. State party’s further observations 8.1 By note verbale of 6 December 2016, the State party submitted further observations in which it reiterated its previous arguments. It notes that the Department of Internal Affairs of Bukhara City conducted a thorough verification, with the involvement of experts, and refused to open a criminal case against the dean of the university. The legality of that decision was examined, and no grounds for its reversal were found. 8.2 In a note verbale of 3 February 2017, the State party referred to the author’s claims of torture and ill-treatment, but indicated that, in the context of the criminal proceedings, no breach of criminal procedure or the author’s rights or legitimate interests was found. 8.3 In a note verbale of 31 July 2017, the State party referred to the author’s dismissal and to the replies received from the Office of the Prosecutor of Bukhara City and the Council of the Federation of Trade Unions in that connection. It notes that neither institution found the author’s dismissal to have been unlawful. Referring to her re-employment, the State party notes that, according to the reply received from the Ministry of Higher and SecondarySpecialized Education on 3 July 2017, the author was hired as teacher of Russian language 5