CAT/C/54/D/542/2013 6.3 Addressing counsel’s argument on the use of torture in Uzbekistan and the allegations of the complainant that he would face torture upon extradition, the State party submits that, in order to establish a possible risk of torture upon extradition, the complainant has to provide proof that he belongs to a group that is systematically subjected to torture. The complainant claimed that the threat of torture in his case resulted from the submission of a complaint to the Committee, but he failed to provide evidence that torture is applied systematically to persons who have submitted complaints to the Committee. Additional information by the complainant 7.1 On 12 May 2014, the complainant’s counsel questioned the reliability of the information presented by the State party about the complainant’s release after such a short period, when he had been sentenced to seven years in prison. She stated that the complainant did not contact her or his relatives after his alleged release. She added that the complainant would have returned to the Russian Federation, where his common-law wife and his brother live, if he had been released from prison. Counsel alleged that the secrecy about the fate of the complainant and the lack of contact with him give serious reasons to believe that he had been tortured in Uzbekistan. She also alleges that, even if he has been released, there is no guarantee that new charges will not be fabricated against him once the Committee finishes consideration of his communication. 7.2 Regarding the State party’s argument about the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, counsel notes that the State party should have been able to obtain the necessary information from the relevant authorities. In any case, all the relevant documents were submitted by the complainant in the letters to the Committee of 19 March 2013, 7 June 2013 and 9 October 2013. She also states that the Supreme Court’s decision of 4 June 2013 was never communicated to the complainant or his counsel and that the complainant was extradited by the time this decision was made public on the Supreme Court website. According to counsel, there were no further effective domestic remedies that could have prevented the complainant’s extradition. He was extradited even before the domestic proceedings on his asylum claim were finished, although under article 12 of the Russian Refugee Act, a person granted asylum in the Russian Federation cannot be returned to the country of his nationality against his will. 7.3 Concerning the State party’s comments on the failure to substantiate the risk of torture for the complainant in Uzbekistan, counsel states that it is impossible to prove torture that could happen in the future. It is sufficient to establish a high probability of such a risk. The level of risk depends on the overall human rights situation in the country, whether torture is widely practised on certain groups of people and whether the person belongs to such groups, and she reiterates her previous arguments. Additional information by the State party 8.1 On 2 October 2014, the State party informed the Committee that, on 30 August 2013, the Fergana City Court reduced the complainant’s sentence from seven years in prison to nine months and seven days on the basis of general amnesty laws adopted between 2002 and 2007 and counted the time he spent in pre-extradition detention in the Russian Federation towards his sentence. 8.2 The State party maintained its position on the lack of substantiation of the complainant’s claim and its inadmissibility. 7