CCPR/C/119/D/2555/2015 lawyer unknown to the author. The author refused to sign the indictment and the questioning record in the absence of his counsel and requested his assistance. The investigator dismissed his request and recorded that the author had refused to sign the documents. 2.18 On 7 January 2013, the counsel submitted a complaint to the investigator requesting a medical examination of the author’s injuries. On the same date, the investigator verbally informed the counsel that the author had been indicted on 4 January 2013, in the presence of another lawyer, and that the pretrial investigation had been completed. The counsel’s request for a medical examination was rejected on these grounds. 2.19 On an unspecified date, the case file was transferred to Bekabad City Court. According to the court record, the first court hearing was scheduled for 25 March 2013 but was postponed to 28 March 2013 and then again to 19 April 2013, on the grounds that the accused and the counsel did not appear in court. The author claims that, in reality, the case file was transferred to the court on 11 or 12 April 2013, and the author and the counsel were only informed of the hearing on 19 April 2013. 2.20 On 29 April 2013, the counsel resubmitted a request for a medical examination of the author’s injuries, which had not been considered by the court. On the same date, he requested the court to consider some documents inadmissible and asked to summon as witnesses the persons who had signed and approved those documents, namely officials of the temporary detention facility, police officers, customs officials and officials of the Department of the Interior in Bekabad who were on duty on the night of 3 August 2012. The court rejected the counsel’s request on the grounds that the investigation had not identified those individuals as witnesses. The counsel asked the court to append to the case file his complaints and motions concerning the misconduct of the customs, police and National Security Service officials. The judge promised to consider the motions and to append them to the case file. However, this is not reflected in the court record. The counsel’s later complaints about the inaccuracy of the court record were dismissed. 2.21 On 6 June 2013, Bekabad City Court found the author guilty and sentenced him to 17 years of imprisonment under articles 25, 28, 59, 246 (2) and 273 (5) of the Criminal Code.3 The court found that on 2 August 2012 the author had attempted to buy 969.66 grams of marijuana from A., who had transported it from Tajikistan and hidden it, and that Mr. Yu., who had removed the drug from its storage place at the author’s request, had been caught in the act by customs and National Security Service officials. According to the court’s decision, on file, “despite the fact that the author did not confess guilt in order to avoid criminal liability and that Mr. Yu. stated that he had testified against the author because he had been tortured during the pretrial investigation, the court considers that the author’s guilt is supported by material on file and witness statements”. The author claims that the court proceedings were delayed deliberately and without justification. Only six persons were questioned in court, including Mr. Yu. (the co-accused), the author’s brother, Mr. T. and Mr. Sh. (witnesses), and two police officers. 2.22 On 13 June 2013, the counsel appealed the conviction, claiming, inter alia, that the author had been arbitrarily detained and tortured and that not all witnesses had been questioned, and challenging the assessment of the evidence by Bekabad City Court. On an unspecified date, the counsel withdrew his appeal, pending the authorities’ action on his multiple complaints about the use of torture and the author’s unrecorded detention. As the authorities provided no response to the counsel’s complaints, on 9 September 2013 the counsel submitted a cassation appeal to Tashkent Regional Court, claiming that the investigator had not allowed him to meet the author between 8 August and 20 November 2012 and that the investigator had not acted upon the complaints about the use of torture. The counsel also requested to summon witness T. and witness Sh. for questioning. On 10 October 2013, Tashkent Regional Court dismissed the cassation appeal as unfounded, rejected the request for additional witnesses to be summoned and upheld the decision of Bekabad City Court. 3 4 Inflicting penalty in instance of multiple crime (art. 59).