CAT/C/47/D/444/2010 Between September and December 2010, four men were extradited to Uzbekistan, for example S.K. was extradited before the Refugee Status Commission could interview him, U.A. whose asylum application was rejected, was extradited while his appeal was pending, R.R. was extradited before determination of his refugee status and K.K. was extradited after his refugee status had been denied. The complainants submit that this practice shows that in the State party bilateral agreements take precedence over non-refoulement obligations. 5.3 On 6 February 2011, new provisions came into force and include a special judicial review of the extradition order and a prohibition for extradition if the person might risk torture upon extradition. On 15 February 2011, the complainants, invoking these new provisions, appealed the extradition orders in the first instance court. Considering that this new remedy has not yet been used, the complainants explain that they cannot assess its effectiveness. 5.4 With regard to the State party’s argument that the presence of UNHCR officials added to the legality of the decision by the Commission on Refugee Status Determination, the complainants note that dissenting opinions by UNHCR in four cases (the files of the other complainants were not accessible) demonstrate that the CDRS insufficiently considered the evidence. 5.5 With regard to the appeal hearings in the Almalin District Court, the complainants note that OSCE had sent independent observers to monitor the trials from 10 to 29 December 2010. In their observations of 14 February 2011, the OSCE states that the trials were in clear violation of the principles of legality, impartiality and other fair trial standards protected under article 14, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and provisions of the national legislation. The complainants were not allowed to be present at trial, the complainants’ files were not made available to their lawyers or only for ten minutes and the judges took very little time to make a decision and no factual evidence was mentioned. The appeal trials also failed to be impartial, legal and in compliance with the principle of equality of arms. Most of the complainants’ appeals have been reviewed and all were rejected. 5.6 With regard to the argument by the State party that the complainants would have a possibility to submit a supervisory review to the Supreme Court, the complainants argue that this does not constitute an effective remedy, as it is discretionary and does not prevent the entry into force and execution of the appeal court’s decision. It further does not have suspensive effect.13 The complainants’ further submission 6.1 On 5 May 2011, the complainants made further submissions, in which they highlighted the danger of an imminent extradition. They base their fear on statements by a Kazakh immigration officer, who informed the complainants’ spouses that they should prepare for the extradition, as well as a statement by an officer from the Prosecutor’s Office, who stated that the extraditions will not take place before the Cassation Court finishes reviewing the cases. Nine appeals have already been rejected and it is expected that the rest of the verdicts will be rendered in May 2011. 6.2 On 15 February 2011, in accordance with the new criminal legislation, criminal appeals were introduced against the deportation order to the court of first instance. According to independent trial monitors, the hearings were summary and claims with respect to the risks of torture in Uzbekistan were not considered. The defence lawyer did not have enough time to present all the evidence. On 15 March 2011, the Almalin District 13 6 See communication No. 249/2004, Dar v. Norway.