CAT/C/47/D/444/2010 the allegations were denied by his cellmate and himself when he was examined by medical personnel with regard to a tooth problem. With regard to an allegation of denial of medical care for Mr. Akbarov, the State party explains that on 12 and 25 December 2010, he was taken to a medical facility following his complaint about heart problems and respiratory difficulties. After examination by the medical personnel, ambulatory treatment in the place of detention was ordered. Mr. Sharipov, who had a medical complaint on 5 January 2011, was treated and did not make any complaint about the medical or administrative personnel of the prison. According to the medical personnel of the places of detention in which the complainants were held, the complainants underwent regular medical examinations. From the complainants themselves, the authorities did not receive any complaints about torture or cruel treatment. 7.3 Regarding upholding the rights of the complainants, the State party submits that during the judicial proceedings, monitoring was carried out by a representative of UNHCR and of the State party’s Human Rights Office. There were no complaints about the proceedings before the commission. The proceedings were transparent and impartial and followed international norms, including the 1951 Refugee Convention. The complainants’ requests for refugee status were examined pursuant to the law on refugees and the complainants brought the negative decision to all instances, that is, the first instance, the appeal and cassation instance. Legal representation of the complainants was guaranteed before all instances. The decision of the commission on migration was based on the fact that the complainants would pose a threat to the State party and could cause significant damage to the security of other countries. The complainants did not receive refugee status pursuant to article 1 F (c), of the 1951 Refugee Convention. The State party further submits that Uzbekistan is a party to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against Torture, therefore the criminal investigation against the complainants will be made according to the Uzbek national law and to its international obligations. 7.4 The complainants were extradited pursuant to the bilateral agreement of 22 January 1993 (the Commonwealth of Independent States’ (C.I.S.) Convention on Legal Assistance and Conflicts in Law Matters of Civil, Family, and Criminal Law, the Minsk Convention hereafter). The Uzbek authorities guaranteed to respect their rights and freedoms, and that no torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment would harm them. The State party therefore submits that the present communication before the Committee against Torture is without merits. The complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations 8.1 On 5 August 2011, the complainants’ counsel submitted her comments on the State party’s observations. Counsel notes, first, that the State party refers to only 19 complainants out of 29. Further, she reiterates her view that the remedies provided to the complainants in the context of their asylum applications were not effective.16 Counsel notes that according to the State party, the asylum requests of the complainants were rejected on the basis of section 12 of the Refugee Act, pursuant to which refugee status is not granted if there are 16 In this context, counsel refers to paragraph 19 of the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee concerning the examination of the initial report of Kazakhstan in July 2011, CCPR/C/KAZ/CO/1[, noting with concern that despite the enactment of new refugee legislation in 2010, its application does not guarantee the rights protected under the Covenant, and that individuals, in particular Uzbek nationals…, have no protection under the principle of non-refoulement. Counsel also refers to a submission prepared by several Kazakhs NGOs in June 2011, expressing similar concerns and referring expressly to the situation of the complainants in the present case (Kazakh NGOs joint report to the Human Rights Committee, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/ngos/Almaty_report_HRC102.pdf)]. 8