CCPR/C/130/D/2526/2015 4.8 The State party argues that citizens of Uzbek ethnicity enjoy a full range of political, social and cultural rights within its territory. Any accusations of nationalism against the authorities are thus unsubstantiated. 4.9 At the same time, the State party points out that the calls for separatism by certain leaders of the Uzbek community are criminally punishable. The author, as a director of Mezon TV, was among the persons who had entered into a criminal conspiracy with Kadyrjan Batyrov (the founder of the People’s Friendship University). In breach of article 23 of the Law on the Media, the author actively supported Mr. Batyrov in the realization of his criminal intent (notably the incitement of ethnic and interregional tension, mass disorder, and seizure and destruction of property). Local residents attempted to halt these criminal activities in May 2010 and were severely attacked by Mr. Batyrov’s supporters. This resulted in the escalation of ethnic conflicts in the city of Osh and in the Jalalabad and Osh regions, with many killed or wounded. 4.10 The author was among those that subsequently became subject to criminal proceedings who, while hiding, were found guilty in absentia. During the trial, the author was represented by counsel, and the defence did not file any motion or complaint regarding any violation of due process or of the author’s procedural rights. The author’s guilt was fully established. The State party observes that due to the extensive coverage of the trial by the media, the author must have learned about his sentence on the news, which is corroborated by the fact that his counsel appealed the decision to the higher courts. The State party concludes that, although the higher court upheld the lower court’s decision, the author’s procedural rights were fully guaranteed at all stages of the proceedings. In addition, the author can appeal if new circumstances are revealed. 4.11 The State party denies the author’s allegation that his sentence reveals discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity. In this regard, the State party informs the Committee that only 51 per cent of those held criminally liable following the events of June 2010 are ethnic Uzbeks. 4.12 Finally, the State party reiterates its position that consideration of the author’s communication on the merits would be inappropriate as all charges against the author have been fully established by the courts and the present communication is unsubstantiated. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 2 December 2015, the author challenged the State party’s observations. He claims that he did not misrepresent the circumstances of the events concerned. 5.2 As regards the State party’s assertion that the repeated television broadcasting of a rally was among the factors that triggered the subsequent conflict, the author reiterates that it was only broadcast once, that the broadcast lasted for four to seven minutes and that it did not include any commentaries. 5.3 The author denies the allegation that only ethnic Uzbeks participated in the rally of 15 May 2010. This can be corroborated by the respective video materials and the witnesses’ statements. The author points out, in particular, that during the rally, the head of the Jalalabad region, Mr. Asanov, an ethnic Kyrgyz, delivered a 13-minute speech in the Kyrgyz language. 5.4 The author also claims that no episode could have been edited out of the broadcast after it was aired on television and before it was published online, because officers of the Jalalabad prosecutor’s office seized the original broadcast during a search. He further explains that a number of sensitive scenes had in fact been cut out by the editor before the video was broadcast. Moreover, there is no connection between a speech made by Mr. Batyrov to the Uzbek population in the village of Kyzyl Kyshtak and the activities of Mezon TV, because the latter did not record this particular event and did not broadcast it. The author also denies that he or his colleagues have ever willingly contributed to the mobilization of Uzbek youth around separatist leaders. They only sought to carry out their duty of informing the public about what was happening. The author is of the view that Mezon TV’s broadcasts were rather aimed at calming the local population and warning of the potential dangers of such incidents. 4