CAT/C/47/D/444/2010 Court ruled that the Prosecutor General’s decision to extradite the complainants was lawful. Appeals were introduced to the Almaty City Court, the last instance, and appeal hearings were scheduled for 20 April 2011. Without prior notice, two defence lawyers were called to the court on 14 April 2011 and the hearing for the 29 complainants took place. On 14 April 2011, the City Court upheld the first instance court decision. 6.3 The complainants note that civil appeals are currently pending before the Cassation Court. In April 2011, nine appeals had been rejected and the verdicts enter into force ten days from the receipt of the decision, therefore placing the complainants under imminent danger of extradition. They requested the Committee to reiterate the interim measures (see para. 1.4). State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 On 24 June 2011, the State party submitted its observations on the merits and informed the Committee on the extradition of 19 complainants. It recalls that from 9 June to 14 December 2010, 19 foreigners under arrest warrant in Uzbekistan for serious crimes were arrested. Four of them were asylum-seekers and 15 had received refugee status by UNHCR. As of 1 January 2010, matters relating to asylum-seekers and refugees were regulated by the new law on refugees and therefore refugee status formerly issued by UNHCR were withdrawn. A special commission under the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (Ministry of Interior as of 30 September 2010) reviewed the 19 complainants’ refugee status. An expert from UNHCR Geneva participated in the examination and had access to all meetings and documentation. The commission also reviewed material provided by Uzbekistan. A lawyer from the State party’s Human Rights Office monitored the work of the commission. The commission rejected the asylum claims and withdrew the refugee status of all 19 complainants. From 10 to 29 December 2010, the court No. 2 of the Almalinsky rayon of Almaty reviewed the complainants’ claims and endorsed the commission’s decision rejecting refugee status. From 2 February to 29 March 2011, the city court of Almaty rejected the complainants’ appeal. The cassation appeals of 28 complainants14 were rejected and the commission’s decision became final. The complainants also instituted proceedings under article 531-1 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the decision by the General Prosecutor to extradite them to Uzbekistan. On 15 March 2011, the court of the Almalinsky rejected their complaint. The Almaty city court equally rejected their appeal and the decision of the General Prosecutor to extradite them became final. 7.2 With regard to the allegations of torture and cruel treatment against the detainees by the State party’s authorities,15 the State party submits that the Prosecutor of Almaty carried out an inquiry with regard to 19 complainants with the cell mates, medical personnel, the administration of the place of detention, as well as medical records and other records kept as foreseen in internal instructions and concluded that there had not been any complaint against the authorities. All complainants received an initial medical exam upon arrival in the place of detention. There has not been any complaint with regard to the medical care in detention and the complainants received legal aid. The complainants could meet their lawyers and families without restriction. For example Mr. Ostonov met 14 times with his wife and 5 times with his lawyer and Mr. Kurbanov was visited by his mother 7 times, his wife 10 times and his lawyer 6 times. On 22 November 2010, the Prosecutor of Almaty investigated allegations of torture against Mr. Kasimov, brought by his wife, and found that 14 It is not clear from the State party’s observations if they address only 19 complainants (which ones is not clear) or if they address 28 complainants, in this case it is not clear what happened to the remaining complainant. 15 The complainants have not made such a claim in their communication before the Committee. 7