CCPR/C/123/D/2371/2014 State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In its observations dated 20 May 2014, the State party submitted that the communication was without merit. The State party observes that, on 24 February 2014, the Bekabad City Court granted amnesty to Mr. Maalem. It also ruled that he need not serve the remaining 1 year, 8 months and 18 days of his sentence and ordered his expulsion from the country. On 25 March 2014, the Tashkent Regional Court upheld this decision on cassation. Mr. Maalem disagrees with the courts’ decisions concerning his expulsion, arguing that they have not considered his family circumstances, in particular, that he has lived in Uzbekistan since 1983, graduated from the university, is married and has five children born in the country. 4.2 The State party maintains that the Senate’s decree on the amnesty on the occasion of the twenty-first anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution provides for amnesty to those sentenced to imprisonment (except those who have committed premeditated murders in aggravating circumstances) whose remaining sentences did not exceed two years and six months and whose sentences were in force on the date of the decree’s publication. The decree also provides that, after the amnesty, these aliens are to be expelled from the country, in accordance with Cabinet of Ministers resolution No. 408 of 21 November 1996. The State party concludes that the authors’ rights under articles 14, 23 and 24 of the Covenant have not been violated and does not consider that the court decisions should be quashed or amended. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 29 May 2014, Mr. Maalem submitted that both Ms. Maalem and his lawyer had appealed to the Tashkent Regional Court. The Court reviewed the case and did not find grounds for annulment of the trial court expulsion order. The authors were subsequently represented by another lawyer who advised them that an expulsion order could not be applied to Mr. Maalem, as he had been convicted in 2009, whereas the decree was modified in 2012. At the time of his conviction, the decree did not prescribe obligatory expulsion of an alien who had committed a crime. Therefore, the decree was wrongly applied retroactively to his case, as it made the sanction more severe. 5.2 On 27 March 2016, Mr. Maalem submitted that the rules on the stay of aliens on the territory of Uzbekistan, as adopted by the Cabinet of Ministers in its resolution No. 409, prescribed that aliens who had committed crimes “could be expelled” from Uzbekistan. However, this version was amended by Cabinet of Ministers resolution No. 235 of 7 August 2012, which prescribed mandatory expulsion and a subsequent re-entry ban for all convicted aliens, without exception. Until then, under the earlier version of the rules, those aliens who had lawful grounds to reside in Uzbekistan, such as residence and a residence permit, would not have been subjected to expulsion. Mr. Maalem reiterates that, in 2009, when he was sentenced, the applicable rules were not as severe as the version prescribing mandatory expulsion, which entered into force only on 7 August 2012; therefore, his expulsion is not compatible with articles 23 and 24 of the Covenant as well as with article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Moreover, he again maintains his innocence and disagrees with the 2009 trial court verdict. He reports that, on the basis of the decision of the Civil Court of the City of Tashkent, his right to leave the country has been restricted. His residence permit in Uzbekistan has been extended until 2020 as a result of a complaint submitted by Ms. Maalem that, according to the law, while their children are minors and Mr. Maalem has not paid child support, he cannot leave the country without the agreement of his wife. In addition, Mr. Maalem reports that his criminal case has been reopened. 5.3 On 5 April and 4 May 2016, Mr. Maalem reiterated his earlier claims, challenging the legality of his conviction for human trafficking and the subsequent court order to expel him from Uzbekistan. He adds new claims, submitting that, during his pretrial detention, he was beaten by police officers and his cellmates and money was extorted from him. On an unspecified date, he complained to the Tashkent City Prosecutor’s Office about this treatment. On 10 June 2010, the Deputy Prosecutor of the City of Tashkent informed him that the 4