CAT/C/52/D/475/2011 requested information from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Office of the Procurator-General regarding the number of persons seeking asylum in Kazakhstan who claim persecution by the authorities of Uzbekistan, how many of them have been granted refugee status and how many of them have been handed over to Uzbekistan. The Office of the Procurator-General responded that the lawyer was not authorized to request that information. The Ministry did not respond. 7.4 The complainant reiterates that his brother’s appeals are likely to fail, since the State party’s legislation does not provide for refugee status to be granted to individuals whose extradition is sought on charges of terrorism, religious extremism and participation in illegal religious organizations. He maintains that that applies in particular to individuals accused of participating in the Andijan events, since the official position of the Kazakh authorities is identical to that of Uzbekistan. The mere submission of an extradition request by Uzbekistan for such an individual is considered by the State party’s Migration Police to constitute a “reasonable ground” to apply article 12, paragraph 5, of the refugee law. The courts consider that the approach of the Migration Police is lawful regarding individuals sought for participation in the Andijan events. The complainant maintains that the practice was confirmed in his brother’s case. His brother’s refugee status application was rejected based on the existence of an extradition request and the question of whether he risks being subjected to torture was not reviewed on its merits at all. The court also declined to review the issue, despite the lawyer’s arguments that his client is under threat of being subjected to torture on return to Uzbekistan. The complainant maintains that further appeals have no prospect of success and that the refugee status determination procedure does not therefore constitute an effective domestic remedy in his brother’s case. 7.5 On the merits of his brother’s case, the complainant refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence that it must take into account all relevant considerations, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the country of extradition, and maintains, on the basis of numerous reports, that the practice of such violations is systematic in Uzbekistan.6 7.6 The complainant reiterates that his brother’s extradition is sought in relation to terrorism charges and alleged participation in the Andijan events (see para 2.3 above) and that his brother’s former co-workers, who have already been convicted on the same charges, were subjected to torture in order to extract their confessions. He maintains that, according to Amnesty International, individuals such as his brother are at a heightened risk of being ill-treated and that the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture has requested countries to refrain from handing over individuals accused of participating in the Andijan events to the Uzbek authorities. He submits that, since Uzbekistan had already issued an arrest warrant and an order for his brother’s detention on remand, it is highly likely that his brother would be immediately arrested and held incommunicado after his extradition, 6 The complainant refers to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, Theo Van Boven (E/CN.4/2003/68/Add.2), paras. 66 and 67; Amnesty International, “Uzbekistan: lifting the siege on the truth about Andizhan”, 20 Sept. 2005; Amnesty International, “Uzbekistan: impunity must not prevail”, 10 May 2006; Amnesty International Report 2011: The State of the World’s Human Rights; report of the Mission to Kyrgyzstan by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights concerning the events in Andijan, Uzbekistan, 13–14 May 2005 (E/CN.4/2006/119), paras. 42 and 55; report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, on follow-up to the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur (E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2); report of the SecretaryGeneral on the situation of human rights in Uzbekistan (A/61/526), paras. 18–21 and 48; and Human Rights Watch, “No One Left to Witness”: Torture, the Failure of Habeas Corpus, and the Silencing of Lawyers in Uzbekistan, 13 December 2011. 7