CCPR/C/119/D/2555/2015 8.3 The Committee recalls that, once a complaint about ill-treatment contrary to article 7 has been filed, the State party concerned must investigate it promptly and impartially. 7 The Committee also recalls that the State party is responsible for the security of all persons held in detention, and that when there are allegations of torture and mistreatment, it is incumbent on the State party to produce evidence refuting the author’s allegations.8 In the absence of any thorough explanation from the State party that its authorities did address the torture allegations advanced by the author expeditiously, independently and adequately, in the context both of domestic criminal proceedings and of the present communication, the Committee has to give due weight to the author’s allegations. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author’s rights under articles 7 and 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant.9 8.4 The Committee has considered the author’s claims under article 9 (1) of the Covenant regarding his deprivation of liberty without charge by law enforcement officials from 3 to 8 August 2012 and the unlawfulness of his pretrial detention. In regard to the first claim, the Committee notes that the counsel submitted several complaints to challenge the lawfulness of the author’s detention, without success. The Committee takes note of the author’s detailed description of his detention between 3 and 8 August 2012, particularly the fact that relatives and lawyers of the detainees waited for them outside the detention facilities and transmitted food to them. It also notes the statements by the author’s brother, Mr. T. and Mr. Sh., before Bekabad City Court, that they were detained during this period. The Committee notes that the State party denies the author’s detention prior to 8 August 2012, despite witness accounts to the contrary, and that it contends that the author was first questioned as a witness and only indicted and arrested on 8 August 2012. The Committee recalls that arrest within the meaning of article 9 need not involve a formal arrest as defined under domestic law.10 It notes, in particular, that the State party has provided no pertinent explanations or evidence countering the submissions by the author. 8.5 The Committee also notes the author’s claim that his detention was unlawful in its entirety, as it was imposed in violation of the criminal law. The Committee takes note of the explanation by the State party that the author was initially arrested under article 221 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a suspect caught immediately after having committed an offence and that, according to article 242 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, pretrial detention may be imposed in regard to crimes punishable by less than three years’ imprisonment if some criteria are met, namely if the accused has fled from the investigation and justice, the identity of the arrested suspect has not been established, the accused violated a previously determined restraint measure, the arrested suspect or the accused had no permanent residence in Uzbekistan, or the crime was committed while serving a sentence of arrest or imprisonment. The Committee notes, however, that the State party has not provided any explanation as to how the author’s detention met such criteria. Furthermore, the Committee notes the author’s claim that from 8 January to 6 June 2013, he was detained without any detention order, whereas the State party has provided neither any explanation in this regard, nor a copy of an order extending his detention or ordering his release. The Committee considers that in these circumstances, and in the absence of pertinent information or explanations from the State party, the facts as submitted amount to a violation of article 9 (1) of the Covenant. 8.6 On the author’s claim about limited access to his lawyer, which hindered the preparation of his defence, the Committee notes the author’s contention that the investigator did not allow him to meet with his counsel privately until 21 November 2012, that is, over three months after his arrest on 3 August 2012 and first questioning on 8 August 2012. 7 8 9 10 See the Committee’s general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 14. See communication No. 2079/2011, Khadzhiev v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 8.4. See, for example, communications No. 1304/2004, Khoroshenko v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 29 March 2011, para. 9.5; No. 328/1988, Zelaya Blanco v. Nicaragua, Views adopted on 20 July 1994, para. 10.6; No. 1096/2002, Kurbanov v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on 6 November 2003, para. 7.4; and No. 330/1988, Berry v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 7 April 1994, para. 11.7. See the Committee’s general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, para. 13. 11