CCPR/C/128/D/2689/2015 that, although she maintained her innocence and requested further investigation into the case, the Court found that her guilt was fully proven on the basis of the testimonies of the victim and witnesses, the conclusions of the forensic-chemical examination, the voice recording and other corroborating evidence.5 The author believes that the court was not independent and impartial, and she expresses concern that the Office of the Prosecutor exercises a strong influence on other State institutions, and the judiciary in particular. 2.8 On 5 December 2014, the Court of Appeal of Bukhara Region dismissed the author’s appeal.6 The Court took into account the author’s arguments that the extortion of money from N.B. was not proven and that the latter gave her $200 voluntarily. The Court assessed all materials and evidence available and ruled against the author, however. The Court also stated that the crime committed by the author fell under the Decree of the Senate of Oliy Majlis of Uzbekistan on amnesty and, therefore, ruled that she was exempt from paying the fine.7 2.9 On 17 January 2015, the Criminal Court of Bukhara Region dismissed the author’s appeal that was submitted to the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan. Referring to the author’s claims that the investigation was carried out with flagrant criminal procedure violations, that her defence rights were not clearly explained to her and that the case had been fabricated by university officials, the Court noted that the author’s right to appeal to law enforcement bodies was indeed explained to her. 2.10 On an unspecified date, the author appealed to the Judicial Chamber on Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court and to the Chairman of the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan, challenging the lower courts’ rulings. In her complaint, she noted, inter alia, that the trial was not impartial, that her guilt was not proven and that her right to legal assistance had been violated. Both appeals were dismissed, on 24 February and 29 June 2015, respectively. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that, on the basis of the materials on file, the lower court had assessed the evidence, qualified the author’s actions and issued the sentence correctly; the author’s right to legal assistance was explained to her during the preliminary investigation and was represented by two different lawyers. 2.11 The author submits that she filed several complaints with the Office of the Prosecutor of Bukhara City and the Office of the Prosecutor General of Uzbekistan. 8 On 23 February 2015, she met with a prosecutor who talked to her very rudely and told her that she would never get any redress for her complaints. A few days later, she tried to submit an additional complaint to the prosecutor’s office, in vain. 2.12 The author submits that, between April and May 2015, the video of her apprehension by law enforcement officers was aired several times on regional television, thereby discrediting and humiliating her.9 She submits that, since then, her health has deteriorated.10 The complaint 3.1 The author claims that the State party has violated her rights under articles 2 (3), 6, 7, 14, 15, 17, 19 and 26 of the Covenant.11 3.2 The author claims that her rights under article 14 (3) were violated, given that the court denied her the right to legal assistance of her own choosing, that there was an undue 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 The author provided a Russian translation of the court ruling. The author informed the Committee that the appeal was submitted on 13 November 2014, but did not provide a copy of the appeal, nor a summary thereof. The amnesty was announced on 14 November 2014 by the Senate of Oliy Majlis in connection with the twenty-second anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution of Uzbekistan. The author does not provide an exact date and claims that she submitted over 60 complaints to State institutions, including the President of Uzbekistan, the Ombudsperson, the Office of the Prosecutor of Bukhara City, the Office of the Prosecutor General of Uzbekistan, the National Security Service, various courts and Bukhara State University. The author did not provide any additional information on those incidents. The author did not inform the Committee whether any medical examinations were conducted in that regard. The author did not elaborate on how her specific rights under the Covenant were violated. 3