CCPR/C/119/D/2359/2014 3.4 All four authors claim that the fact that they did not have access to a lawyer of their choice amounts to a violation of article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant. 3.5 The authors claim that, given their Uzbek ethnicity, the fact that the criminal proceedings related to the conflict between Kyrgyz and Uzbek communities and the aggrieved party was of Kyrgyz ethnicity, as were all representatives of the authorities participating in the criminal proceedings against the authors, amounts to discrimination, which is prohibited under article 26 of the Covenant. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In its observations dated 29 October 2014, the State party submits that, during the events of June 2010, when inter-ethnic violence erupted in and around the city of Osh, much government-owned and private property was burned and destroyed. The authors of the communication took an active part in these events, specifically by illegally detaining two Kyrgyz citizens at Mr. Saidarov’s residence in Osh and using violence against them. 3 4.2 On 21 January 2011, Mr. Saidarov and Mr. Vasilov were sentenced to three years of imprisonment; Mr. Erbabaev was sentenced to one year of imprisonment and Mr. Davudov was sentenced to five years of imprisonment. On 3 March 2011, the Osh city prosecutor’s office brought a supervisory review protest before the Osh regional court. The regional court, in its decision of 26 May 2011, sent the case back to the Osh city court for a new trial. 4.3 The counsel for the defence disagreed with the decision of the Osh regional court and brought a supervisory review request procedure before the Supreme Court, on the grounds that the alleged victims and the defendants had reconciled and the victims had no claim to compensation. The counsel for the defence asked the Supreme Court to uphold the ruling of the court of first instance. 4.4 The Supreme Court ruled that the court of first instance had taken all relevant evidence into consideration, and upheld the initial conviction. By asking the Supreme Court to uphold the lower court’s verdict and sentence, the defendants admitted their guilt. The arguments presented by the authors in their communication to the Committee contradict the content and substance of the supervisory review request submitted to the Supreme Court. 4.5 The State party also submits that all the authors had opportunities to submit their complaints regarding torture and mistreatment to the State authorities, but failed to do so. 4.6 The State party further submits that, under article 59 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the courts can consider compensation for cases of illegal indictment, arbitrary detention or persecution. This is applicable when the criminal charges are dismissed or the defendant is acquitted. Since the authors have raised no complaints and have been found guilty by the courts, the issue of compensation cannot be considered. Additional observations by the authors 5.1 On 23 January 2015, in response to the State party’s observations, the authors submitted that the State party had failed to answer the questions posed by the authors in their communication to the Committee. 5.2 The persecution that the authors experienced should be seen in the context of the events that took place in June 2010. Many houses and other forms of property belonging to ethnic Uzbeks were burned down. Two young men who were detained at Mr. Saidarov’s house were suspected of being arsonists. Although the authors contacted the authorities immediately, law enforcement officers only arrived to pick up the detained arsonists the following day, on 13 June 2010. 5.3 During the hearings, the authors asked the court to issue a summons for one of the officers, Z.K., who had come to Mr. Saidarov’s house. The court denied their request, claiming that the officer in question was in Bishkek at the time. 3 4 The State party provides no further information.