CCPR/C/123/D/2371/2014 Additional observations From the State party 8.1 On 28 April and 10 October 2017, the State party again provided a detailed narrative of the facts of Mr. Maalem’s crime, explaining that all procedural steps against him had been taken in the presence of his lawyer and that his guilt was fully proven by the testimony of the co-accused and of the victims who were trafficked, the records/protocols of face-to-face questioning of the co-accused, the questioning of the witnesses and other evidence. In the courtroom, he did not call additional witnesses, nor did he complain of ill-treatment in the course of the pretrial investigation. The shortcomings in the pretrial investigation raised by the author and his counsel in their cassation appeals were examined by the cassation court, which upheld the first instance verdict on 11 June 2010. The State party reiterates that Mr. Maalem was released on 25 February 2014 and that during his detention in the remand prison he was not subjected to any ill-treatment. He was medically examined upon his arrival in the remand prison (full medical examination) and his health was found to be satisfactory. 8.2 In addition, the State party clarifies that, in accordance with the decision of the Tashkent Mirzo-Ulugbek Civil Inter-district Court of 5 May 2014, following Ms. Maalem’s claim concerning the payment of child support by Mr. Maalem, the execution of the expulsion decision has been temporarily suspended and his resident permit extended until 17 April 2020. From the authors 9.1 On 17 August 2017, Mr. Maalem commented on the State party’s additional observations. He reiterates his claims in relation to the criminal proceeding against him, both at the pretrial and at the trial phase. He adds new claims that neither the co-accused nor the witnesses – the women victims of trafficking –“said anything against him” in the courtroom; that the court only took into consideration their earlier testimony given during the pretrial investigation; and that the court denied his and his counsel’s motions to hear three additional witnesses. 9.2 He maintains his claim that he was beaten in the remand prison by a police officer and by a cellmate. As regards the forensic medical examination, he rebuts the State party’s argument, clarifying that the examination was conducted two years after the beatings had taken place and therefore no traces could have remained, except his headaches. From the State party 9.3 On 10 October 2017, the State party repeated its previous submissions regarding the 2009 criminal trial, alleged ill-treatment and expulsion. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 10.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 10.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 10.3 The Committee notes the authors’ claim that they have exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to them. In the absence of any objection by the State party in that connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 6