CCPR/C/119/D/2555/2015 The criminal proceedings against the author 5.11 The author submits that his conviction is based on inadmissible evidence and that he was found guilty in violation of the law. He challenges the assessment of the evidence carried out by the domestic courts. He was arrested and detained as a result of provocation by the authorities, who planted the drugs. The author and the four other detainees were tortured in order to extract statements about the location of the drugs. There is no evidence proving the author’s guilt other than Mr. Yu.’s guilty plea and the author’s confession obtained under torture. The court did not take into account the testimonies of the coaccused Mr. Yu., the witness Mr. T. and the attesting witnesses, who did not mention the author’s involvement in the crime. The attesting witnesses were not summoned to testify in court, although they resided in Bekabad and were present in the city at the relevant time. They were strictly prohibited from testifying in court. Mr. Yu.’s guilty plea was a result of intense torture. In his initial statements, Mr. Yu. denied the author’s involvement. Mr. Yu. intended to submit a written claim to the investigator explaining that he had falsely testified against the author, but he did not finish it, fearing that he would be tortured. The author participated in Mr. Yu.’s upbringing and is married to his sister. In court, Mr. Yu. begged the author’s relatives to forgive him for having testified against the author. Furthermore, Mr. Yu.’s arrest record and the record of a violation of the customs legislation should not be considered as valid evidence against the author because the author’s name is not mentioned there. The author’s relative from Tajikistan was questioned repeatedly in connection with phone calls exchanged with the author but his involvement in the crime was not confirmed. 5.12 The author reiterates his claim about the excessive length of the proceedings. He adds that no investigative activities with his participation were conducted during his detention in the National Security Service investigation ward. Although the pretrial investigation term expired on 8 January 2013, no action was taken until 20 May 2013. In the intervening period, his and his counsel’s motions and requests that were signed by the investigator upon delivery disappeared from the case file. Additional submission from the State party 6.1 On 4 January 2016, the State party submitted that the author’s claims should be dismissed as unsubstantiated. The State party reiterates the facts of the case, particularly that the author and Mr. Yu. were arrested on 8 August 2012 and their detention was authorized by a decision of Kibraisk District Court on 10 August 2012. The court proceedings lasted from 19 April to 6 June 2013, in compliance with the requirement under article 405 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure that they should not exceed two months. The first-instance court questioned the co-accused, the author’s brother, Mr. T., Mr. Yus., Mr. Sh. and Mr. S., who had a connection with the crime. The court examined written evidence that had been put in the case file at the pretrial investigation stage; the parties made no remarks or comments in that connection. The court considered all the counsel’s motions, such as to conduct a medical examination in relation to Mr. Yu., to question other witnesses in court, including the attesting witnesses, and to append complaints about misconduct by customs, police and National Security Service officials to the case file. After consideration, the court decided that the motions were not relevant to the case and dismissed them, in accordance with article 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6.2 On 10 October 2013, Tashkent Regional Court upheld the author’s conviction. According to the case file and the conviction, the author was found guilty based on statements by the witnesses questioned during the investigation and court proceedings, the crime report, the record of the circumstances established in the course of the covert operation and a related scheme, the record of the physical evidence examination and of the weight of the physical evidence, expert evidence No. 69 of 3 August 2013, crossexamination records and other written evidence. In court, the accused Mr. Yu. stated that he had testified against the author under pressure from law enforcement authorities during the investigation and that the author had not been involved in the crime. The first-instance court critically assessed Mr. Yu.’s testimony in court. It noted that Mr. Yu. had testified in the presence of his lawyer, when questioned as a suspect, as an accused person and in the faceto-face confrontation with the author, and that neither Mr. Yu. nor his lawyer had complained about the alleged pressure by law enforcement officials. The author’s claims 9