CCPR/C/123/D/2371/2014 documents of the internal investigation had been transmitted to the Yunusabad Prosecution Office for a pre-investigation check. On 14 July, the Yunusabad Prosecution Office refused to initiate criminal proceedings due to the lack of corpus delicti. State party’s additional observations 6.1 In a submission dated 3 February 2017, the State party reiterated its previous arguments and addressed Mr. Maalem’s new allegations. The State party submits that his arguments regarding illegal detention, torture and ill-treatment during the period of detention in institutions UYA 64/21, UYA 64/IZ-1 and UYA 64/IZ-13 were thoroughly studied and have not been confirmed, in view of the absence of facts attesting to the commission of a crime. In the course of the investigation, Mr. Maalem’s guilt was fully proven by witnesses’ testimonies, face-toface questioning of witnesses and other objective evidence. During the pretrial investigation, no violations of the legal rights and interests of the accused were established. 6.2 Based on the evidence collected in the criminal case, on 19 May 2009, Mr. Maalem was found guilty of committing a crime, stipulated by article 135 (3) (d) of the Criminal Code of Uzbekistan, and he was sentenced to imprisonment for eight years. 6.3 During his detention, no mental or physical pressure was exerted on Mr. Maalem. In the penitentiary institutions of the State party, the necessary measures are taken to prevent any actions aimed at infringing upon the legitimate rights of those detained and those sentenced to imprisonment. Particular attention is paid to human rights, including the prevention of torture and other inhuman treatment. In the event that physical force or other unauthorized treatment is revealed, the guilty persons are disciplined or criminally prosecuted. Following Mr. Maalem’s statement that he was beaten at the UYA-64/IZ-1 institution, which is under the control of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, an official investigation was carried out and the Prosecutor’s Office of the Yunusabad District of Tashkent carried out a pre-investigation check. 6.4 Mr. Maalem’s cellmates did not confirm his beating and the extortion of money, claiming that he was not beaten and no money was extorted from him. The doctors of the institution, A.M. and V.S., explained that he repeatedly complained of back pains, that he had been treated for “back illness” before being taken into custody and that he received appropriate medical assistance in the institution. According to the conclusion of the forensic medical examination, no injuries were found on the body of Mr. Maalem. Evidence supporting the alleged beating has not been established. Based on the results of the investigation, on 10 July 2010, the Prosecutor’s Office of the Yunusabad District of Tashkent refused to initiate criminal proceedings, on the basis of article 83 of the Criminal Procedural Code (absence of corpus delicti), and the Tashkent Prosecutor’s Office upheld this decision. Mr. Maalem was treated twice in the hospital while in prison for his medical complaints (at the end of 2009 and of 2012) and his general health was satisfactory and stable. Author’s comments on the State party’s additional observations 7. On 17 February 2017, Mr. Maalem reiterated that he disagreed with the trial court verdict against him and claimed that his guilt had not been proven and the accusations against him fabricated. He considers the courts’ decisions unlawful and unfair and disagrees with the classification of his crime given by the court. He explains again that he was using his own car to work as a taxi driver and provides a detailed narrative of the events of his alleged crime in 2009. He reiterates his claim that he was beaten while in detention and that his first and second lawyers advised him not to complain. He challenges the outcome of the internal investigation. Mr. Maalem also reiterates his previous arguments with regard to his expulsion from the country. 5