CCPR/C/123/D/2371/2014 10.4 The Committee takes note of Mr. Maalem’s allegations of ill-treatment by police officers and cellmates during the pretrial detention with the aim of extracting money and intimidating him. That Mr. Maalem raised this allegation before national authorities, notably with the Prosecutor’s Office, is not refuted by the State party. In this regard, the Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that an internal investigation took place and on that basis the Prosecutor’s Office refused to initiate criminal proceedings for lack of corpus delicti. From the information before it, the Committee is not in a position to conclude that Mr. Maalem was subjected to treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. In the absence of further information from the authors in this respect, the Committee concludes that the allegations under article 7 have not been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility and declares them inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 10.5 The Committee notes Mr. Maalem’s claims under article 14 of the Covenant that fair trial guarantees were breached throughout the criminal proceedings, in particular that he disagrees with the sentence against him and with the court’s assessment of the evidence; that his and his lawyer’s motions to hear additional witnesses on his behalf were denied; that the court accepted testimonies of the co-accused and the women victims of trafficking given at the pretrial phase, some of which they retracted in the courtroom. The Committee further notes his claims that, during the court hearing of 24 February 2014 when he was granted amnesty, he was not informed about his expulsion from Uzbekistan; and that the hearing was held partly in Uzbek and partly in Russian and the court’s decision was delivered only in Uzbek, whereas he speaks only Arabic, French, English and Russian. The Committee notes, however, that there is no record in the file that Mr. Maalem raised this claim before the domestic authorities at the material time. The Committee takes note of the State party’s assertions that Mr. Maalem was represented throughout the proceedings by a lawyer of his own choosing and that all procedural steps against him were taken in the presence of his lawyer. Furthermore, his guilt was fully proven by the testimony of the co-accused, the trafficked victims, records and protocols of faceto-face questioning of the co-accused, questioning of witnesses and other evidence. The Committee also notes the State party’s clarification that in the courtroom Mr. Maalem did not call additional witnesses, nor did he complain of ill-treatment in the course of the pretrial investigation. Based on the information before it, the Committee considers that the author did not sufficiently develop his claims regarding the right to a fair trial and declares these claims insufficiently substantiated and inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 10.6 The Committee considers that the authors have sufficiently substantiated their remaining claims, raising issues under articles 23 and 24 of the Covenant. It also considers that the authors’ claims also raise issues under article 17 of the Covenant. The Committee therefore proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 11.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 11.2 With respect to the claim of a violation of article 23, the Committee observes that to separate Mr. Maalem from his children and the rest of his family in Uzbekistan may give rise to issues under article 17, read in conjunction with article 23 (1), of the Covenant. The Committee reiterates its jurisprudence according to which there may be cases in which a State party’s refusal to allow one member of the family to remain in its territory would involve interference in that person’s family life. However, the mere fact that one member of the family is entitled to remain in the territory of a State party does not necessarily mean that requiring other members of the family to leave involves such interference. 1 1 See Byahuranga v. Denmark (CCPR/C/82/D/1222/2003), para. 11.5; Winata v. Australia (CCPR/C/72/D/930/2000), para. 7.1; and Madafferi v. Australia (CCPR/C/81/D/1011/2001), para. 9.7. 7