CAT/C/52/D/475/2011 crossing the border at Uralsk, Kazakhstan. The complainant alleges that the border police did not present any judicial warrant, nor did they explain the reasons for the arrest. The complainant’s brother was taken to a pretrial detention centre of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Uralsk. 2.2 The complainant submits that his brother is being held incommunicado, that he does not have access to a lawyer and that his correspondence is not being released from the pretrial detention centre. 2.3 On 27 July 2011, Uralsk City Court issued an order for the arrest for the detention for one month, pending extradition, of the complainant’s brother. The complainant submits that, according to the Court’s decision, his brother faces extradition to Uzbekistan on charges brought against him under the following articles of the Criminal Code of Uzbekistan: article 155 (terrorism); article 159 (attempts to overthrow the constitutional order); article 244, part 3 (illegal exit from or entry into Uzbekistan); article 248, paragraph 1 (illegal possession of arms, ammunition or explosive substances); article 244, paragraph 1 (production and dissemination of materials containing a threat to public security and public order); article 244, paragraph 2 (establishment, direction of or participation in religious extremist, separatist, fundamentalist or other banned organizations). The complainant submits that, while the charges were allegedly related to his brother’s participation in the organization of the May 2005 Andijan events, a warrant for his arrest had already been issued by Uzbekistan in February 2003. 2.4 The complainant further submits that the passport number and the address of the residence indicated in the February 2003 arrest warrant did not correspond to his brother’s personal data. The complainant maintains that before carrying out extradition, the State party must confirm that the person who is named in the arrest warrant is his brother. 2.5 The complainant submits that, in Uzbekistan, his brother used to work as a furniture maker, along with six other furniture makers. In May 2005, his brother decided to go to the Russian Federation to work there. After his brother’s departure to the Russian Federation in May 2005, the other six furniture makers were arrested and charged with various crimes. The complainant alleges that they were tortured during the investigation and that the charges against them were fabricated. They were convicted on terrorism charges related to organizing and participating in the Andijan events. 2.6 The complainant submits that, after his brother’s departure to the Russian Federation, their father was arrested and held in detention for several days. The complainant claims that, thereafter, police officers came to his parents’ house on numerous occasions and interrogated all the members of the family, seeking information about his brother. 2.7 The complainant submits that his brother’s extradition is scheduled for 27 August 2011. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that his brother’s extradition to Uzbekistan would constitute a violation by the State party of articles 3, paragraph 1, 6, and 7, paragraph 3, of the Convention. 3.2 The complainant submits that torture is systematic in Uzbekistan and that, in particular, suspected participants in the Andijan events are persecuted and subjected to mass arbitrary arrest and torture. He maintains that if his brother is extradited to Uzbekistan, the likelihood of him being tortured is very high. The complainant maintains that the other furniture makers who worked with his brother were tortured by law enforcement agents in Uzbekistan. 3