CCPR/C/123/D/2371/2014 on 25 March 2014, the Tashkent Region Appeals Court upheld the Bekabad City Court decision of 24 February. The decision is in force, and Mr. Maalem could be deported from Uzbekistan, and thus permanently separated from his family, at any time. On 8 April and 21 May 2014, Mr. Maalem filed requests for supervisory review with the Supreme Court, which were rejected on 22 May. On 6 June, he filed a request for supervisory review with the President of the Supreme Court, which was rejected on 16 July. 2.4 Although satisfied with the first instance court’s decision as regards the amnesty, the authors reiterate that, despite the State party’s imperative to expel aliens who have committed a crime on its territory, the State party should have properly assessed the circumstances of their case and should have taken into consideration that Mr. Maalem is not a tourist, has strong ties with the State party, is married to an Uzbek citizen and has five children who are all Uzbek citizens. Moreover, he has always maintained his innocence, claimed he never committed a crime and was never part of a criminal group engaged in human trafficking. In his situation, expulsion effectively means permanent separation from his family. Furthermore, Ms. Maalem and their children, who are not aliens, will nevertheless be affected and will suffer the consequences of Mr. Maalem’s expulsion, as they will be separated from their husband and father. The family has managed to maintain a close relationship through the years, including while Mr. Maalem was in prison. The children’s psychological well-being, health, overall development and views will be negatively affected by forced separation from their father. According to the authors, in the present case, the State party’s regulations on expelling aliens with criminal convictions are in conflict with the constitutional provisions on State support to the family and the Family Code, as well as with articles 23 and 24 of the Covenant. The authors request the Committee to ask the State party to treat their situation as exceptional and partly annul the decision of the court ordering Mr. Maalem’s expulsion while upholding the decision in the part relating to the amnesty. The complaint 3.1 The authors claim that the State party’s decision to expel Mr. Maalem permanently from Uzbekistan constitutes a breach of their and their children’s rights under articles 23 and 24 of the Convention. They emphasize that inadequate consideration has been given to their right to a family life with their children. In that connection, the authors also make reference to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Mr. Maalem’s expulsion to Algeria would therefore constitute a violation of his right to family life under article 23 of the Covenant. The authors submit that their children were born in Uzbekistan and are Uzbek citizens. They therefore maintain that the State party has violated their children’s rights under articles 23 and 24 of the Covenant by ordering Mr. Maalem’s expulsion, as they cannot be expected to follow him to Algeria. Therefore, the family will be effectively and permanently separated, and this will put the well-being of their children at risk. 3.2 Mr. Maalem also claims that his rights under article 14 of the Covenant have been violated as he was not informed that he was also ordered to be expelled from Uzbekistan when he was amnestied; his trial was held partly in Uzbek and partly in the Russian language, while he speaks only Arabic, French and Russian, and the court’s decision was delivered only in the Uzbek language. 3.3 In addition, in a subsequent submission, Mr. Maalem claims that he was beaten by police officers and his cellmates in the pretrial detention facility, which raises issues under article 7 of the Covenant. 3.4 At a later stage, in a subsequent submission, Mr. Maalem adds other claims under article 14 concerning alleged breaches of fair trial guarantees by the trial court that sentenced him in 2009. 3