A/69/44 regrets the lack of information provided by the State party on the outcome of the review of 995 criminal cases relating to the June 2010 violence (arts. 4, 12, 13 and 16). The State party should take effective measures to ensure that all allegations of torture or ill-treatment, related to the June 2010 violence, by security or law enforcement officials are fully and impartially investigated, and that the officials responsible are prosecuted. In particular, the State party should ensure that: (a) A thorough and impartial review of 995 criminal cases related to the June 2010 violence is conducted, and, when appropriate, proceedings are reopened in cases in which torture allegations have not been fully investigated or in which serious violations of due process rights have been revealed; (b) Security or law enforcement officials found responsible are subjected to disciplinary and/or criminal penalties for torture and ill-treatment; and (c) Allegations of any public official’s infliction of, ordering of, or acquiescence to torture or ill-treatment against ethnic Uzbeks is fully and effectively investigated and, as appropriate, prosecuted. Fundamental legal safeguards (9) The Committee expresses its serious concern at the State party’s failure to afford to all persons deprived of their liberty, especially those held in pretrial detention, all fundamental legal safeguards, as described in the Committee’s general comment no. 2 (2007) on implementation of article 2 by States parties (paras. 13–14), from the outset of deprivation of liberty. The Committee is particularly concerned at reports that detainees are frequently denied access to an independent lawyer of their choice, that police officers forcibly extract confessions in the early stages following apprehension, before formal detention or arrest, and that in practice lawyers need to secure special permission from investigators to have access to their clients (arts. 2, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16). The State party should ensure that: (a) All persons deprived of liberty are afforded, in law and in practice, all fundamental legal safeguards from the very outset of their deprivation of liberty, including the rights to prompt access to a lawyer of their choice, to request a medical examination by an independent doctor, to contact family members, to be informed promptly of their rights, including about the charges against them, and to be brought before a judge within 48 hours of their deprivation of liberty; (b) All persons deprived of their liberty have prompt access to assistance from independent lawyers, and can communicate privately with them; (c) All detainees, including minors, are included in a central register of persons deprived of liberty, in which relevant information about fundamental safeguards is immediately recorded, and which can be accessed by the lawyers and family members of those detained and others as appropriate; that the State party monitors the provision of safeguards to persons deprived of their liberty, including public officials’ compliance with registration requirements; and that any public official who denies fundamental legal safeguards to such detained persons is disciplined or prosecuted. Definition and criminalization of torture (10) While welcoming the recent amendment in the Criminal Code on the definition of torture, the Committee regrets that the current definition of torture in article 305(1) of the Criminal Code limits criminal responsibility to public officials, excluding other persons acting in an official capacity. Furthermore, the Committee regrets that the specific offence 38 GE.14-12596