CAT/C/54/D/542/2013 with a procurator of the Kanavinsk District of Nizhny Novgorod, during which he explained that his prosecution by the Uzbek authorities was politically motivated and that they wanted to punish him for having filed a communication to the Committee on behalf of his brother, who is wanted by the Uzbek authorities allegedly in connection with the 2005 Andijan events. He also stated that the criminal prosecution against him in relation to the suicide of his wife was discontinued in 2002 and that he had continued to live in Uzbekistan, at his usual address, until he left for the Russian Federation in 2008. He also claimed that the Fergana Court decision of 25 April 2002 was backdated and groundless. 2.8 On 12 November 2012, the complainant’s counsel submitted written arguments against the complainant’s extradition to the Office of the Procurator General of the Russian Federation. On 15 January 2013, the Office of the Procurator General of the Russian Federation took a decision to extradite the complainant to Uzbekistan without waiting for the outcome of the asylum proceedings. On 30 January 2013, the complainant appealed the extradition decision before the Regional Court of Nizhny Novgorod, which rejected the appeal on 26 February 2013. Addressing the complainant’s argument that the execution of the judgement of the Fergana City Court of 25 April 2002 was time-barred, the court stated that, according to the information provided by the Uzbek authorities, the search for the complainant initiated on 25 April 2002 had been called off on 22 June 2007 when a dead body was mistakenly identified as the complainant. The search was renewed on 26 April 2012. Therefore, the time limit for the execution of sentence had not expired. The Court did not address the complainant’s argument that he lived at his usual address in Uzbekistan from 2002 until 2008 and was crossing the border between the Russian Federation and Uzbekistan regularly. As for the argument that his prosecution was politically motivated and he would face a risk of torture if extradited, the court noted that no evidence was presented on possible persecution for political or religious reason, and that there was no reason to doubt the authenticity of the documents provided by the Uzbek authorities. The Court also relied on the diplomatic assurances of non-persecution in the request for extradition of the Uzbek Office of the Procurator General. On 3 March 2013, the complainant appealed the decision of the Regional Court of Nizhny Novgorod before the Supreme Court. The appeal was rejected on 4 June 2013. The complaint 3. The complainant argued that, if extradited to Uzbekistan, he would face a risk of persecution and torture owing to his family ties with his brother, who was being prosecuted in Uzbekistan for crimes of political and religious nature, and because of the complainant’s communication to the Committee on his brother’s behalf. He claimed that a complaint to international bodies submitted against Uzbekistan is treated as disagreement with the official policy of the State and the authors of such complaints risk being subjected to unfair criminal prosecution and torture.5 Thus, according to him, his extradition would violate his rights under article 3 of the Convention. The State party’s observations 4.1 In a note verbale of 19 July 2013, the State party challenged the admissibility of the communication. The State party notes that the complainant has not exhausted all available domestic remedies on the main subject matter of his claim – the extradition decision of the Office of the Procurator General of 15 January 2013. On 4 March 2013, the complainant 5 Reference is made, among others, to Human Rights Watch, World Report 2013 (available from www.hrw.org/world-report/2013/country-chapters/uzbekistan) and Amnesty International, The State of the World’s Human Rights (2012) (available from www.amnestyusa.org/sites/default/files/air12report-english.pdf), pp. 361–363. 5