CCPR/C/119/D/2555/2015 Thus, the author’s identity has been established, he has permanent residence in Uzbekistan, has no criminal record, has no drug or alcohol addiction, is referred to positively by his neighbours, is a father of four minor children and has two dependants with disabilities. 5.6 The complaints by the author and the counsel about the unlawful detention from 3 to 8 August 2012 remain unanswered, despite the existence of criminal liability for forced illegal deprivation of liberty, under the Criminal Code. Use of torture 5.7 The author submits that the State party misinterprets his complaint about torture, by referring to the period as starting on 8 August 2012. The author reiterates that he was tortured on the customs premises on 3 and 4 August 2012 and in the temporary detention facility from 4 to 8 August 2012. He was also tortured after 8 August 2012, while in pretrial detention in the National Security Service investigation ward and in investigation ward No. 1 of the Ministry of the Interior. 5.8 He was tortured to extract a confession. He can recognize the officials from the detention facilities and the hardcore prisoners who tortured him. Their identity can also be established by checking the relevant documentation of the detention facilities. At every questioning he provided a detailed account of the torture inflicted. The testimonies of the author’s brother and Mr. T., and the confrontation between the author and Mr. Yu., corroborate the author’s statements. The author and his counsel filed a number of complaints about the use of torture, with different authorities, but no action was taken. Many such complaints were not appended to the case file. The authorities’ reply that they studied the case file implies that they became familiarized with all the complaints. In court, the counsel resubmitted all complaints that were missing from the case file, including the request for a medical examination of the author’s injuries. According to medical information, rib injuries resulting in cracks and fractures last for a lifetime and can be seen by means of a simple X-ray. Since the suicide attempt, the author has had a big scar on his penis. A doctor can confirm that the scar has not been medically treated. The author indicates that a medical examination can be conducted at the present time and expresses readiness to submit yet another request for such expertise. Access to counsel 5.9 The author reiterates his claim concerning the lack of private meetings with his counsel. On 3 August 2012, the counsel received a warrant of attorney to represent him and transmitted it to the investigator. But the counsel and the author did not meet before 8 August 2012, for 10-20 minutes. However it was not a confidential meeting, as officials were waiting by the door, the room was equipped with video cameras and the conversation was recorded. The next meeting with the counsel took place in the court premises on 10 August 2012 while the court was deciding on the author’s detention. The counsel was not authorized to approach the author before the beginning of the hearing. Another meeting took place in similar conditions in the appeal court on 7 November 2012. From then until the end of November 2012, the counsel was never given an opportunity to meet the author. At the end of November 2012, the investigator authorized the counsel to meet the author; only two or three meetings took place. 5.10 Starting from the end of November 2012, the counsel called the investigator daily in order to enquire about investigative activities with the author. The investigator promised to keep the counsel informed. On 5 January 2013, the counsel asked the investigator if he intended to conduct any investigative activities and informed him that he would be busy in the afternoon. The investigator replied that he might extend the author’s detention for two more months. On 6 January 2013, the counsel was informed by Mr. Yu.’s lawyer that the charges against Mr. Yu. and the author had been altered, that the investigation had been completed and that it was possible to study the case file. On the same day, the author told the counsel that the investigator had informed him that the counsel had to attend a burial ceremony and therefore could not attend the investigative activities. The investigator did not allow the author to contact the counsel to verify that information. The author refused to participate in the investigative activities and did not sign any document. 8