CCPR/C/114/D/2234/2013 5.5 The State party submits that the author was arrested on 6 October 2005 and, after having been charged on 8 May 2005 with crimes under articles 165 and 168 of the Criminal Code, she was ordered to be placed in detention. According to the State party, however, she was transferred to Ferghana Remand Centre No. 10 only on 14 October 2005. While the author maintains that she was transferred on around 18 October 2005, she notes that the State party admits that she was detained for eight days in a temporary holding cell, contrary to the Uzbek Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires transfer from a temporary holding cell within 72 hours. The State party appears to acknowledge therefore that the author’s detention was unlawful, in violation of article 9 (1). 5.6 The author reiterates that the State party failed to ensure a fair trial by an independent and impartial court and to guarantee and uphold her right to equality of arms. The author’s detailed allegations included that: her lawyers had been threatened and not been provided with sufficient time to prepare for the trial; the prosecution had deliberately prevented her lawyers from consulting with her and from accessing the entire case file; and her lawyers were not given permission to cross-examine key prosecution witnesses. The State party chose not to address any of the specific allegations or the evidence showing that the author did not receive a fair trial. The author submits that she has discharged her burden of proof and established a prima facie case that the State party is responsible for a violation of article 14. 5.7 The State party claims that it had investigated allegations of ill-treatment against the author during pretrial detention and that the latter remained unsubstantiated. The author submits that she had specified the different incidents of ill-treatment, and provided extensive evidence in support. The State party was therefore in a position to investigate the incidents of ill-treatment since the author had provided dates and names of witnesses and perpetrators of the incidents. The State party does not, however, provide evidence of any investigation into these allegations. The author submits that it is insufficient for the State party to claim that it investigated the alleged incidents of ill-treatment. 5.8 The author reiterates that she has submitted to the Committee two complaints from her lawyer raising the lack of access to her client and that the State party did not address that which was submitted. The author reiterates that, with the exception of a one-hour visit from her daughter in October 2005, the detention authorities refused to allow visits from family and friends for more than three months. The author reiterates that, contrary to the State party’s assertion, she did not receive parcels of food and clothes brought to Ferghana Remand Centre No. 1 by her parents. 5.9 The State party fails to provide any evidence to show that qualified medical personnel is employed at those centres, including a medical officer with knowledge of psychiatry as provided for in the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. She maintains that the administration of Ferghana Remand Centre No. 10 failed to provide her with adequate medication on several occasions, and failed to diagnose the impact the conditions of detention had on her, driving her to attempt suicide in late December 2005. 5.10 The State party claims that, upon arrival at the women’s colony on 7 July 2006, the author was placed in an admission unit in accordance with article 56 of the Criminal Code. However, it does not produce any evidence to show that or how article 56 was complied with in the present case. The State party also fails to address the submitted evidence, which includes an appeal filed by her lawyer to the prison administration and the administration’s response of 24 July 2006, confirming that she was placed on the psychiatric ward. The State party’s practice of forcing political prisoners to undergo psychiatric treatment as a form of punishment and retaliation is well documented. 5.11 The author further submits that the State party fails to distinguish between the working hours, and the requirement for prisoners to “do service”, requiring prisoners to 10