CCPR/C/118/D/2317/2013 he was arrested on the basis of a decree issued by a senior investigator in the Chilanzar district police office in Tashkent. The author was given the relevant document to read and he signed it. The author’s relatives were informed about the arrest in a timely manner. On 27 December 2008, the author was indicted under article 135 (2) (b), (e), (f), (h) and (i) of the Criminal Code and on the same date the Chilanzar District Court issued a ruling authorizing the author’s detention. During the hearing the author was represented by a State-appointed lawyer in view of the absence of his chosen lawyer. The State party submitted that the author’s detention in the pretrial detention facility of the police during the period described in the submission was in accordance with the law. 6.4 The State party stated that following the submission on 8 May 2009 of a complaint by the author’s brother concerning torture of the author in detention, the chief directorate for the enforcement of punishment carried out an investigation but did not find any proof of the allegations of ill-treatment. 6.5 Addressing the author’s allegation that the administration of the detention facility refused to allow visits by his family and the lawyer, in particular a visit requested by the author’s wife on 19 May 2009, the State party refers to the law on detention during criminal proceedings, according to which the authorization to visit a person in pretrial detention can be granted by the officer or institution in charge of the respective criminal investigation. According to the State party, the detention facility administration is not in a position to authorize visits. 6.6 To the author’s allegations of torture in detention, the State party replies that the author underwent a medical examination in the detention facility and has not requested medical assistance while in detention. When the author was transferred to prison No. 64/29, a surgeon, a general practitioner, a psychiatrist and a dentist examined him. No scars or burns were detected on his body. Medical examinations carried out on 25 February and 25 May 2010 did not reveal any deterioration in the author’s health.2 6.7 The State party clarifies that the author was reprimanded on 11 February 2010 for repeated breaches of the prison rules, such as failure to maintain his working space in order, his reluctance to keep his clothes clean and to wear a uniform, as well as repetitive quarrels with the officers on these matters. Since the author continued to breach the rules, despite the reprimand, on 15 April 2010, he was placed in solitary confinement for five days. The State party also submits that, contrary to what the author claimed, on 10 April 2010, representatives of the regional delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross did not visit prison No. 64/29 and that the author was not subjected to any unlawful treatment on that or any other date. 6.8 On the basis of the above information, the State party submits that the author’s complaints were unsubstantiated. Author’s additional comments to the State party’s observations 7.1 On 19 August 2015, the author submitted comments on the State party’s observations. Responding to the State party’s argument about the investigation carried out by the chief directorate for the enforcement of punishment, which had not revealed any signs of ill-treatment of the author in detention, the author states that the State party has failed to provide any details of such investigation. Similarly, the State party has not submitted any procedural documents on the criminal investigation that led to his conviction. 7.2 The author reiterates his previous statement that it was impossible to access remedies, owing to his incommunicado detention. Commenting on the State party’s 2 6 The State party has not provided any supporting documents concerning this statement. It has not provided any documents in support of any of the three submissions. GE.17-01270