CCPR/C/116/D/2044/2011 4.3 Furthermore, given that the issue of medical diagnosis correctness falls within the competence of medical experts, the appeals instance justifiably decided to partly quash the lower court’s decision and terminate proceedings concerning the part related to the medical doctor’s diagnosis as, pursuant to article 100, paragraph 1, of the Civil Procedure Code, a court must terminate proceedings if the issue falls outside its jurisdiction. 4.4 In the light of the above facts, the State party maintains that the domestic decisions were lawful and justified. In addition, it notes that the first author submitted a complaint to the Department of Internal Affairs of Samarkand Region on 20 October 2006. Her complaint was examined; however, the claims were found to be groundless. Consequently, the State party maintains that the authors’ rights under the Covenant have not been violated during the national proceedings in the present case. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 13 August 2011, the authors submitted that the national authorities had failed to take any measures in order to initiate criminal proceedings concerning their kidnapping and arbitrary detention in a psychiatric hospital. They note that their complaint of 20 October 2006 contained information about a crime under article 138 of the Criminal Code (unlawful deprivation of liberty with force), that is, about the authors’ arbitrary placement in a psychiatric hospital for nine days without providing any explanation. The same complaint contained information that the actions of the police officer, N., the Chair of Khafiz Sherozi, Sh., and the emergency ambulance medical doctor, Kh., in relation to the authors constituted a crime under article 137 of the Criminal Code (kidnapping). This complaint also contained reference to “crimes committed in relation to them under articles 321 and 322 of the Criminal Procedure Code” (duty to initiate criminal proceedings and grounds for initiating criminal proceedings). In the light of the above, the authors submit that, in essence, the Prosecutor’s Office was obliged to initiate criminal proceedings concerning the actions of N., Sh. and Kh.; however, their complaint was forwarded to the Department of Internal Affairs, where it was lost for unknown reasons. 5.2 The authors further explain that they had approached a civil court in a timely manner with claims about the unlawful actions of N., Sh. and Kh. and violations of their constitutional rights. In this connection, they reiterate that, on 27 December 2006, the Samarkand City Court refused to accept the suit, stating that it was not supported by the necessary documents, namely, responses from the national authorities. Consequently, they had observed the prescribed time limits under article 270 of the Civil Procedure Code. 5.3 The authors argue that they have never behaved inadequately and that the State party has not provided any evidence attesting the contrary. In addition, the second author was granted permission to drive a car in 2005 despite his “post-traumatic encephalopathy”. The authors further note that the medical doctor K., who was in charge of supervising the first author’s examination, did not speak Russian and used an interpreter to communicate with the first author. K. was the doctor who diagnosed that the first author suffered from “somatic deviations of psyche of borderline character with accentuated personality”, or, in other words, was “a person who constantly wants to complain”. Consequently, the authors contest this medical doctor’s ability to reach a proper conclusion concerning the first author’s mental health. 5.4 The authors also submit that they had submitted all the necessary evidence and facts of the case in order to satisfy their request and initiate criminal proceedings against the responsible persons. In addition, they note that, during the civil proceedings before the 5