CCPR/C/119/D/2555/2015 established during the investigation, and his relative Mr. Yu., with a view to transporting 969.66 grams of marijuana from Tajikistan to Uzbekistan to sell. On 3 August 2012, while retrieving the marijuana from the place where it was being stored, Mr. Yu. was caught redhanded, whereas the author fled. On 8 August 2012, the investigator ordered that the author be prosecuted. On the same day, the author was arrested and was placed in the National Security Service investigation ward. 4.3 The State party denies that the author was detained between 3 and 8 August 2012 and subjected to torture while in pretrial detention. He was admitted to the premises of the National Security Service only on 8 August 2012. Throughout his pretrial detention, he did not complain about the alleged torture to the investigator or his counsel; the administration of the detention facilities did not record any facts of torture either. The counsel’s requests of 13 August 2012 and 7 January 2013 did not reach the National Security Service. The author was repeatedly informed of his rights and responsibilities as a suspect and detainee and he countersigned relevant records. His pretrial detention was in accordance with the law, notably article 221 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5 According to article 242 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, pretrial detention may be envisaged for intentional crimes punishable by less than three years’ imprisonment. 4.4 The counsel’s requests of 9 August and 13 December 2012 to examine the lawfulness of the author’s arrest and detention were dismissed on 10 August and 14 December 2012 respectively, on the grounds that the National Security Service lacked competence to examine them. The counsel was advised instead to submit the request to the police or the prosecutor’s office. The investigator’s decision of 14 December 2012 was served on the counsel. On 12 August 2012, the investigator transmitted to the counsel a decision rejecting the counsel’s request of 10 August 2012 for the author’s release on bail, which had been made with a view to preventing further offending and interference with the administration of justice. 4.5 Concerning the lack of confidential meetings between the author and his counsel, no request for such meetings could have been received at 11 p.m. on 3 August 2012, as the investigator left his office at 8 p.m. On 8 August 2012, the author and his counsel met confidentially for one hour on the premises of the National Security Service, before the investigative activities took place. After the completion of the investigative activities, the author and his counsel were again given an opportunity to meet confidentially. They countersigned the order of 8 August 2012 for prosecution of the author as an accused person. When questioned as a suspect, the author indicated that he had met with his lawyer confidentially, which is reflected in the questioning record signed by the author. Between 8 August and 19 November 2012, several meetings with the counsel were held at the counsel’s request, without any time limit. An interrogation and a face-to-face confrontation were also conducted during this period, in the counsel’s presence. The counsel was also informed of the right to meet the author confidentially, without limitations on the number of meetings or on their duration. 4.6 The counsel was informed that the author’s indictment would be completed, with the additional counts, on 4 January 2013. The counsel responded that he was attending a burial ceremony in another region for 10 days and therefore would agree to the appointment of another lawyer for the author by the investigator. 4.7 The State party rejects the author’s claim under article 14 (3) (e) of the Covenant, since all persons who could have been cognizant of the events were questioned as witnesses. On 17 December 2012, at the counsel’s request, the investigator questioned the author’s brother, Mr. Sh. and Mr. T. The Code of Criminal Procedure, in its article 36, empowers the investigator to determine which investigative activities are necessary. The investigator also ordered that the operational department establish the identity of the accomplices, including A., in respect of whom criminal proceedings, for an additional investigation, were severed. In line with article 375 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, after finding that the evidence 5 6 “A person suspected of having committed an offence may be apprehended only if there exist the following grounds: (1) the person is caught in the act of or immediately after committing the offence”. Available from www.legislationline.org/documents/section/criminal-codes/country/55.