CAT/C/52/D/475/2011 3.3 The complainant submits that his brother has applied for refugee status in Kazakhstan. The complainant maintains that there is very little chance that his brother will be granted refugee status. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 3 November 2011, the State party challenged the admissibility of the complaint. It submits that, on 27 August 2011, the Office of the Procurator-General of Uzbekistan sent a request for the extradition of the complainant’s brother, who is accused of terrorism, interference with the constitutional order of Uzbekistan, illegal establishment of a religious organization, production and dissemination of materials containing a threat to public security and public order, and establishment and participation in religious extremist, separatist, fundamentalist or other banned organizations. According to the materials presented by the Uzbek authorities, he had participated in the illegal establishment of an extremist religious organization called Akromiilar, which aimed to change the constitutional order in the country, taking power or removing lawfully elected or appointed State officials. He was accused of having studied a textbook entitled Yimonga Joul, which contained so-called “dogmatic ideas”, disseminating those ideas and recruiting members for the organization. He was also accused of conspiring with two other individuals, one of whom was later killed during a terrorist attack in Andijan which took place on 12 and 13 May 2005. He was further accused of founding a furniture producing enterprise in 1999, and a leather processing enterprise in 2004–05, 20 per cent of the profits from which were utilized to finance the illegal religious organization. The complainant’s brother and others used the funds to purchase communication technology, transport and weapons which were later used to create disturbances in Andijan and to free arrested members of Akromiilar. 4.2 The State party further submits that, on 24 July 2011, the complainant’s brother was arrested by the Kazakh authorities. His detention was authorized by Uralsk City Court on 26 July 2011. The same Court later extended the detention for three more months. On 22 August 2011, the complainant’s brother’s lawyer filed an application for refugee status in Kazakhstan on behalf of the complainant’s brother. On 7 September 2011, the complainant’s brother filed a request for political asylum with the Directorate of Migration Police, in response to which he “was given a clarifying answer”. The State party submits that, if the complainant’s brother’s request for asylum is rejected, he has the right to appeal before a court in accordance with the Civil Procedure Code. Accordingly, the State party submits that the complainant has not exhausted all available domestic remedies and that the complaint should be declared inadmissible in accordance with article 5, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol to the CCPR.1 Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 6 January 2012, the complainant submitted that the State party had not submitted any information regarding the effectiveness of the refugee status determination procedure or of the appeals procedure in cases of denial of refugee status, in particular concerning individuals who were accused of terrorism in Uzbekistan and threatened with extradition. The complainant’s brother had indeed applied for refugee status, but he did not believe that the application would have a positive outcome, since according to article 12, paragraph 5, of the Kazakh refugee law, persons who are accused of terrorism or participation in illegal religious organizations cannot be granted refugee status. Moreover, the official position of the Government of Kazakhstan regarding the Andijan events is the same as that of the 1 4 The State party appears to confuse the communication procedures before the Committee against Torture and the Human Rights Committee.