CCPR/C/114/D/2234/2013 the author had founded the illegal O’tyuraklar organization; she was engaged in the production and dissemination of materials containing threats to public safety and the public order. She received financial assistance from various foreign organizations to operate the above-mentioned illegal organization, used these funds in a manner not corresponding to the purpose for which they had been granted, and evaded paying taxes. Furthermore, she gained the trust of two individuals and extorted from them 100,000 Uzbek sum and 900 United States dollars; she also attempted to extort money from the family of a certain Mr. M. and was apprehended as she received 600,000 sum. In her capacity of manager of the Hakikat company, she committed forgery in order to obtain a loan of 800,000 sum. The guilt of the author was fully proven by the testimony of the victims and other evidence. The verdict and the second instance decision were amended by a Supreme Court ruling of 2 June 2008 whereby her sentence was reduced to a three-year suspended sentence. 4.4 The State party submits that the author’s claims regarding impermissible treatment against her while in pretrial detention had been considered and could not be confirmed. The State party notes that meetings of persons under arrest with their legal representative and relatives are allowed with the written permission of the official in charge of the criminal case, and that administrators of detention centres are not among officials authorized to issue permission for meetings. All parcels received in the detention centre for the author were handed over to her in a timely manner by the administration. During her stay in the pretrial detention centre, the author did not request medical assistance from the centre’s medical personnel. During the daily inspection of the cells and questioning by the personnel of the centre, the author did not have any health-related complaints. 4.5 The State party submits that, according to paragraph 56 of the Code of Execution of Punishments, convicted persons are placed in an admission ward upon arrival, for a period not exceeding 15 days, in order that their personality and how they are adjusting to incarceration can be examined. The admission ward is not a medical or psychiatric institution. Upon arrival on 7 July 2006 at the detention centre in Tashkent, the author was placed in the admission ward, subjected to a complete medical examination, clinical tests and a biochemical analysis. She was diagnosed with emotional exhaustion, cardiopsychoneurosis and hypertension. She received both inpatient and outpatient care. Upon the conclusion of the adjustment period, the author was transferred to join the general prison population in a satisfactory condition. She did not have any complaints regarding a deterioration of her health. There are no facts supporting the claim that the author had a fight with the medical personnel, or that there were any attempts to give her any injections. Her claims that, after 10 days spent in the psychiatric unit, her attorney was able to obtain her transfer to a different unit in the colony are “absurd and agenda-driven”, since the time frame for the adjustment period for the convicted individuals is established in article 56 of the Criminal Code, and defence attorneys are not able to influence it. 4.6 Over the course of her time in the detention facilities, the author did not request medical attention from the doctors of the facilities. The State party submits that the author’s claims that she was forced to work nine hours a day and had to spend seven hours a day on her feet were fabricated. According to article 88 of the Criminal Code, prisoners are involved in labour according to their sex, age, health and ability to work. The working conditions are regulated in the labour laws; the length of the working day for the detainees is established in the Labour Code and does not exceed 40 hours per week; the author worked in the manufacturing facility in the sewing unit, which cannot be done while spending seven hours on her feet. The employee of the facility named in the author’s communication was an instructor in the young offenders’ unit and could under no circumstances have been in contact with the author. 4.7 The State party maintains that the author was not subjected to any illegal acts, rough treatment or torture by the administration of the facility. She was not refused access to the 7