CAT/C/47/D/444/2010 was not convinced by the Government’s argument that they had an obligation under international law to cooperate in fighting terrorism and had a duty to extradite the applicants who were accused of terrorist activities, irrespective of a threat of ill-treatment. It also noted that it was not persuaded that the assurances from Uzbekistan offered a reliable guarantee against the risk of ill-treatment. 3.5 The complainants submit that the available domestic remedies are not effective, as gross breaches of the complainant’s rights to a fair trial have been committed. An interpreter was neither provided during the interview conducted for their asylum application, nor the trial hearings. The complainants had access to lawyers only three months after their arrest and only once or twice with limited time. They were not provided an interpreter to communicate with their lawyers. Their lawyers were refused access to significant documents necessary to prepare their clients’ case and they were prevented from including into the defence torture evidence in Uzbekistan. Moreover, some hearings were held in the complainants’ absence. 3.6 With regard to their continued detention, the complainants submit that they have not been charged with any offence under the Kazakh law and that there is no legal basis for their continued detention since June 2010. State party’s observations on the admissibility 4.1 On 22 February 2011, the State party requested that the Committee consider the admissibility separately from the merits. The State party explains that between 9 and 20 June 2010, 19 foreigners, who were sought after by Uzbekistan, were arrested, four of which were asylum-seekers and 15 had been previously recognized by UNHCR as refugees. As of 1 January 2010, the law on refugees came into force and refugees who had their status recognized previously were no longer valid. The complainants status was reviewed by a Commission, in which an expert from UNHCR took part and which studied materials provided by the Uzbek Government. The complainants’ refugee status was either revoked or not granted. From 10 to 29 December 2010, the district court of Almalin rejected the complainants’ appeal against the Commission’s decision to revoke or not grant their refugee status. The complainants appealed to the Almaty city court, which has so far reviewed eight cases and rejected their appeals. Within 15 days of the appeal court’s decision, the complainants may file a cassation appeal. Furthermore, the supervisory review before the Supreme Court is also available to them within a year entry into force of the final decision. 4.2 The State party submits that the complainants failed to exhaust all domestic remedies, considering that their cases are either in the appeal or cassation stage. The complainants’ comments on the admissibility 5.1 The complainants recall that at the time of submission, they had stated that domestic remedies were not yet exhausted, however they reiterate that they do not consider the available domestic remedies to be effective and that extradition may occur in practice any time before the exhaustion of domestic remedies, despite a well-founded risk of torture. 5.2 The complainants further submit that, on 6 February 2011, a new law governing the process of extradition and refugee status came into force. At the time of submission, the Criminal Procedure Code did not provide for judicial review of an extradition decision by the General Prosecutor, therefore, at the time of submission no effective remedy was available against the extradition decision. Although the complainants appealed the revocation/denial of refugee status at the first instance court, the communication was submitted to this Committee before exhaustion of domestic remedies, due to the ineffectiveness of the remedies. In November 2005, nine Uzbek nationals who were under determination for refugee status by UNHCR were extradited without a possibility to appeal. 5