CCPR/C/116/D/2193/2012 counsel’s report concerning the actions of the Kyrgyz law enforcement officials in relation to the author and his brother was sent to the Office of the Prosecutor General of Kyrgyzstan, for investigation. 4.2 The State party submits that the author was apprehended on its territory on 19 August 2011. During his apprehension, the author was informed of his rights. On the same date, the Prosecutors’ Office of the Moscow Region in Solnechnogorsk decided to detain the author as a measure of restraint. On 26 September 2012, the author’s detention was prolonged. On both occasions, he was told that he had a right to appeal those decisions; however, neither the author nor his counsel appealed. Furthermore, from the moment of his apprehension on 19 August 2011, the author was provided legal assistance. In this regard, the State party notes that no complaint was made by either the author or his lawyers about the actions of the law enforcement officials during apprehension or during the extradition proceedings. The State party notes that, upon receiving information from the counsel about the alleged unlawful actions during the author’s apprehension, the Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee of the Moscow Region in Solnechnogorsk examined the allegations at issue and, on 25 June 2012, decided to refuse to initiate criminal proceedings. In order to verify the lawfulness of that refusal, the materials of the examination were sent to the Head Office of the Investigative Committee for review. On 10 September 2012, the Investigative Committee quashed the decision of 25 June 2012. The State party observes that the author’s counsel submitted the claims about the unlawful actions during the author’s apprehension eight months after the apprehension and five months after the adoption of the decision with respect to the author’s extradition. The State party submits that this fact demonstrates that the author’s counsel attempted to unjustifiably delay the adoption of a decision on the issue of the author’s extradition. Consequently, the State party maintains that the author was provided with an effective remedy, making it possible for him to appeal any decision during the extradition proceedings. 4.3 The Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation examined the extradition request and decided to satisfy it on 14 November 2011. The State party notes that the author appealed this decision before the Moscow Regional Court, which rejected the appeal on 3 April 2012. Thereafter, the author appealed to the Supreme Court, which quashed the Regional Court’s decision on 30 May 2012. The Supreme Court noted that the Regional Court had not requested the Office of the Prosecutor General to submit its considerations regarding the changes in the time of the crime with which the author had been charged in Kyrgyzstan. Consequently, on 14 June 2012, the Deputy Prosecutor General authorized the extradition request, taking into account the period when the crime at issue had been committed. On 11 July 2012, the author’s appeal was again rejected by the Regional Court. Thereafter, the Regional Court’s decision was upheld by the Supreme Court on 22 August 2012. The State party submits that the author was released from detention on 19 August 2012, when the maximum permissible period for his detention had been reached. In this regard, the State party reiterates that neither the author nor his counsel ever appealed against the decisions to keep the author detained. 4.4 In the light of the above, the State party submits that, in order to reach a decision concerning the author’s extradition, all the necessary verification and examination measures were taken. With respect to the real risk of being subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in Kyrgyzstan, the State party considers as unfounded the author’s claim that he would be subjected to treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant in Kyrgyzstan. In this regard, it notes that Kyrgyzstan, a State Member of the United Nations, has ratified the main international human rights treaties, including the Covenant. The State party further submits that the Office of the Prosecutor General of Kyrgyzstan provided assurances that the author’s prosecution would be conducted in strict compliance with the Criminal Procedure Code and the international obligations of Kyrgyzstan, that he would not be handed over to a third State without the prior agreement of the Russian Federation, that 4