CAT/C/47/D/444/2010 serious doubts to believe that the asylum-seekers took or take part in forbidden religious organisations. Counsel explains that this provision of the law was criticized as being contrary to international refugee law.17 8.2 Concerning the State party’s explanations on the allegations of the complainants’ torture in Kazakhstan (see paragraph 7.2 above), counsel contends that the present communication focused on article 3 of the Convention and that, in any event, counsel has no information in this connection, the communication with the complainants having been uneasy due to their detention in Kazakhstan. In addition, after their removal to Uzbekistan, the complainants are detained incommunicado. 8.3 Counsel notes that the complainants were extradited on 9 June 2011 by the State party, which gave “wrongfully its cooperation agreement with Uzbekistan precedence of the non-refoulement obligation”, without respecting the Committee’s request for interim measures of protection and in spite of two reminders to this effect, and without addressing the issue of the interim measures in its submissions, with the knowledge that the complainants would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon return, and depending on “unreliable diplomatic assurance” reportedly provided by Uzbekistan. Counsel notes that the State party has officially acknowledged the removal of 28 individuals; she requests clarifications about the whereabouts and the status of the one remaining individual. 8.4 Counsel claims that the complainants’ expulsion took place on the basis of the C.I.S. Minsk Convention. This Convention, however, does not refer to the non-refoulement obligation resulting of the State party’s adherence to the Convention against Torture, and its provisions cannot release the State party from its obligations not to return an individual if a risk of torture exists in the receiving State. 8.5 Counsel further contends that the State party was aware of the existence of a risk, for the complainants, of being subjected to torture in Uzbekistan, although in its observations it does not comment specifically on the matter. She points out that several public reports on the widespread use of torture in Uzbekistan were released by United Nations institutions,18 and international and national NGOs. The European Court of Human Rights has also developed a constant jurisprudence establishing the existence of such serious risk in case of extradition to Uzbekistan. In their asylum applications, the complainants had provided details on the personal risk of torture they faced in Uzbekistan; a number of them also referred to past tortures suffered there. All of the complainants are charged with serious crimes in Uzbekistan, such as belonging to a prohibited religious movement, and as such, all of them belong to a group systematically exposed to ill-treatment. In addition, half of the complainants have been previously granted refugee status in Kazakhstan, by UNHCR, prior to the entry into force of the new asylum legislation. 17 Counsel refers to a report prepared by the FIDH in October 2009 : “Kazakhstan/Kyrgyzstan: Exploitation of migrant workers, protection denied to asylum seekers and refugees”. Finally, counsel explains that Kazakh NGOs criticise the role of UNHCR as participating in the determination of asylum status in the State party (Kazakhstan Coalition of Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) against Torture, 2010 Report, p11, http://www.bureau.kz/news/download/175.pdf), and notes that the Human Rights Committee has expressed similar concerns in its concluding observations on Kazakhstan in July 2011. 18 Reference is made to the concluding observations on Uzbekistan by the Committee against Torture, CAT/C/UZB/CO/3, those of the Human Rights Committee, CCPR/CO/83/UZB, and a report by the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture (A/HRC/13/39/Add.6), as well as public reports concerning Uzbekistan prepared by ACAT France, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, and Uzbek NGOs. 9