CCPR/C/127/D/2920/2016 4.14 The State party explains that the court decision of 12 February 2010 replacing the travel ban imposed on the author with an arrest was not considered by the appeal court. 4.15 On 5 August 2010, the criminal charges against the author were lifted by the Balkhash city court and she was released from arrest. At the same time, the court ordered her hospitalization and inpatient treatment, and she remained hospitalized until 22 September 2011. On 6 September 2011, the Talgar district court replaced the forced treatment in the psychiatric facility with compulsory outpatient observation in Balkhash city. This decision was not appealed and entered into force. According to it, on 27 September 2011, the author was registered in the Balkhash psychiatric centre for compulsory observation and treatment. The State party claims that all subsequent compulsory medical examinations and hospitalization were conducted according to the Health-Care Code and the courts’ decisions. 4.16 The State party submits that the author did not substantiate her claim that Judge Bashanov had no right to consider her case since his wife was a prosecution witness. Moreover, if that were the case, the author could have asked for the judge to recuse himself, but she had not done so. 4.17 The State party states that the author’s claim that she could not appeal the actions of the Deputy Chief Medical Officer to the court of cassation are not substantiated since, on 27 September 2013, the Karaganda regional court considered the cassation appeal of the author against the Deputy Chief Medical Officer. The court agreed with the decisions of the first instance court and the court of appeal and rejected the complaint. 4.18 In relation to the author’s claim that she could not appeal the medical experts’ actions, the State party submits that all the expert forensic psychiatric reports were assessed by the courts. In addition, the Ministry of Health’s Medical and Pharmaceutical Oversight Committee for the Karaganda Region reviewed the expert examination of the author. 4.19 Regarding the alleged violations of the author’s rights under articles 18 and 19 of the Covenant, the State party notes that all citizens of Kazakhstan enjoy their rights equally, including human rights defenders. According to the available information, the author does not conduct any public, human rights or advocate activity. She is a civil law lawyer. Thus, her claims that she was subjected to compulsory treatment because of her human rights activities are unsubstantiated. She was subjected to compulsory hospitalization and treatment based on the medical experts’ conclusion and the courts’ decisions. Thus, the State party claims that the author’s communication is not substantiated. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 14 September 2017, the author provided comments to the State party’s observations. The author recalls the facts of the criminal case against her. 5.2 She claims that chronic delusional disorder does not belong to the group “schizophrenia” and that is why her diagnosis is dubious. She also claims that people having such severe diseases receive a disability status, which is not her case. She also submits that she was not able to obtain a medical commission’s decision about her registration for observation and treatment in the Balkhash psychiatric centre; thus, she could not appeal this decision. 5.3 The author states that she did not appeal the Talgar district court decision of 6 September 2011 because she had no decision on hand. However, she filed a cassation complaint. The Almaty regional court quashed the decision since another decision of the Balkhash city court of 26 July 2012 had entered into force. This decision cancelled the order for the author’s compulsory treatment; however, in spite of this, she was subjected to compulsory hospitalization in 2013 and 2014. The author recalls that her further hospitalization and treatment were compulsory even though there were court decisions that she did not pose a danger to herself or to others. 5.4 The author claims that, during the hearing on 20 August 2013, she brought before the Balkhash city court her claims regarding the violence committed against her on 9 August 2013. She further disagrees with the statement of the State party that there was an investigative review of the event of 9 August 2013, since the review in question was conducted in reference to a complaint initiated by another person. 8