CAT/C/52/D/475/2011 which would aggravate the risk of being subjected to torture. Furthermore, the decisions of the Kazakhstan courts on extending his brother’s detention pending extradition contain references to the fact that he had submitted a complaint to the Human Rights Committee7 and that he had applied for refugee status. If the extradition takes place, the court decisions will be transmitted to the authorities in Uzbekistan in order for the duration of the detention in Kazakhstan to be subtracted from the final sentence. In Uzbekistan, the very fact that an individual has submitted a communication to a United Nations body or applied for refugee status is considered slander against the constitutional order, which is a crime. The complainant also makes reference to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, which has found violations of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights in similar cases.8 He concludes that in the present case, his brother is facing a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture in the event of his extradition to Uzbekistan. 7.7 The complainant further submits that the Office of the Procurator-General appears to be awaiting the negative decision of the appeals court in response to his brother’s application for refugee status in order to issue an order for his deportation. The complainant maintains that his brother will appeal the decision of the Procurator-General to grant the extradition request, but that the appeal has no chance of succeeding, since the Office of the Procurator-General systematically denies that the Uzbek law enforcement agencies use torture and justifies extraditions with the provision of so-called guarantees issued by the Uzbek authorities. Moreover, the courts agree with the position of the Office of the Procurator-General and request that complainants provide official documents confirming that they have been subjected to torture and/or will be subjected to torture in the event of extradition. Obviously, the extradited individuals are not in a position to provide such documents. 7.8 The complainant submits that he is under imminent threat of extradition9 and urges the Committee to reiterate its request for interim measures. State party’s further observations 8. On 25 April 2012, the State party reiterated its previous submission (see paras 6.1– 6.4 above). Complainant’s further submissions 9.1 On 18 June 2012, the complainant submitted that, on 7 May 2012, the West Kazakhstan Regional Court rejected his brother’s appeal against the 23 April 2012 decision of Court No. 2 of Uralsk City denying him refugee status. The second instance court ruled that the complainant’s brother’s arguments that in Uzbekistan there was a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights and that the plaintiff might become a victim of torture, inhuman treatment or punishment could not be taken into consideration since there was no concrete evidence that he might be subjected to torture and inhuman treatment in his country. Further, the Court stated that the decision of the Commission on the implementation of the procedure for granting. extending, withdrawing and terminating 7 8 9 8 The State party’s courts indeed mistakenly refer to a communication before the Human Rights Committee. The complainant refers to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in the following cases: Ismoilov and others v. Russia, Application No. 2947/06, Judgment of 24 April 2008; Elmuratov v. Russia, Application No. 66317/09, Judgment of 3 March 2011; and Sultanov v. Russia, Application No. 15303/09, Judgment of 4 November 2010. The complainant refers to a report by Human Rights Centre “Memorial”, entitled “Refugees from Uzbekistan in the CIS countries: the threat of extradition (May 2005–August 2007)”.