E/CN.4/2003/68/Add.2 page 12 as persons accused of membership in banned political or religious organizations or of having committed crimes related to their alleged religious beliefs or activities.5 It was alleged that law enforcement agents seek to coerce self-incriminating confessions or testimonies against third parties, to extort bribes, or to punish, humiliate or break the will of those suspected of or convicted on political or religious grounds as well as of human rights activists. Prolonged beatings, sometimes with clubs or other implements, suffocation through the use of gas masks or plastic bags, electric shocks, sexual violence, and denial of food or water were said to be common practices. It was also alleged that the criminal justice system appeared to lack procedural safeguards against abuse by members of law enforcement agencies, as it reportedly grants procurators wide powers concerning pre-trial custody and access to lawyers/relatives and to forensic evidence. Thus, over the years, a large number of individual cases have been referred for clarification to the Uzbek authorities under the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. 35. The Minister for Foreign Affairs indicated that the Government had studied and responded to all allegations submitted under the mandate. If the replies had not reached the Special Rapporteur, it was said to be due to a “technical problem”. The State Secretary on law enforcement agencies confirmed that all communications received from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had been studied by the relevant authorities of the country and not a single allegation had been confirmed. Despite repeated requests by the Special Rapporteur for copies of the responses, at the time of writing they had not been received. 36. The Special Rapporteur also notes with concern that from his discussion with the Acting Chairperson of the Supreme Court, it became clear that requests for interim measures issued by the Human Rights Committee, a large number of which concern death sentences based on confessions allegedly extracted under torture, had not been brought to the attention of this organ of the judiciary, which reviews all death penalty cases. The Special Rapporteur is seriously concerned at what appears to be a lack of appropriate consideration of, and action in relation to requests on behalf of individuals at risk of torture or even of execution, or who have been victims of acts of torture. 37. In this connection, on 6 December 2002, the Special Rapporteur handed over to the Minister for Foreign Affairs an urgent appeal on behalf of Iskander Khudoberganov and his co-defendants (see details regarding this case in appendix II). The Special Rapporteur indicated that he would appreciate receiving any information that the Government could provide about the situation of the persons concerned before the completion of the present report. At the time of writing, no information had been received. 38. The request by the Special Rapporteur to visit the country also echoed the concerns expressed by the Committee against Torture, which included “(a) the particularly numerous, ongoing and consistent allegations of particularly brutal acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment committed by law enforcement personnel; (b) the lack of adequate access for persons deprived of liberty, immediately after they are apprehended, to independent counsel, a doctor or medical examiner and family members, an important safeguard against torture; (c) the insufficient level of independence and effectiveness of the procuracy, in particular as the Procurator has the competence to exercise oversight on the appropriateness of the duration of pre-trial detention, which can be extended up to 12 months; (e) the insufficient independence of the judiciary” (CAT/C/CR/28/7, para. 6). Similarly, the Human Rights