CCPR/C/130/D/2526/2015 5.5 The author reiterates that an intervention by the mayor of Osh and a representative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs was broadcast, and also reiterates his inability to reach his home for two days. According to the author, due to an unintentional typing error, the description of the events mentioned the date of 10 June, but in fact the broadcast took place on 11 June at 4 a.m., and he could not return to his home after that date. 5.6 The author reiterates that Parliament violated the constitutional provisions and domestic law by claiming that he was guilty before any court decision was pronounced. He also clarifies that he has never blamed the Kyrgyz population or the Kyrgyz authorities for being nationalists or chauvinists, but he had only been referring to particular officials and groups. 5.7 He further refers to the concluding observations adopted by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the Human Rights Committee. 3 According to him, they provide a different account of the situation of inter-ethnic relations in the State party (notably the position of the Uzbek population) than that asserted by the State party in its reports to the Committee. The author also refers to the report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry into the Events in Southern Kyrgyzstan, which he claims confirms that there were no separatist demands during the events of June 2010. 5.8 The author denies the State party’s allegations concerning the existence of a criminal conspiracy between him and Mr. Batyrov, who reportedly financed Mezon TV. He states that all contentions of this kind are false, because Mr. Batyrov has never provided any financial or logistical resources to the author’s television company, and there has never been any criminal association between them. 5.9 The author also addresses the procedural irregularities that allegedly took place during the trial. According to the author, his criminal case was opened on 19 May 2010, that is, 25 days before he left the country. However, the investigator failed to file the charges against him in the presence of his counsel and to inform him of their nature. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the participation of the defendant during a trial by a court of first instance is generally deemed obligatory. The author refers to the State party’s argument that, as acknowledged by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court, it is permissible to conduct the trial and sentence a defendant in absentia provided that the latter resides outside the State party and declines to appear in court. However, this conclusion was made by the court on 21 February 2014 (i.e. after the pronouncement of his sentence). Moreover, he never declined to appear in court and never hid from the authorities. The author only found out about his conviction through the Internet and news in the media, which made it impossible for his counsel to prepare for the proceedings at the higher courts. In addition, he later discovered that his counsel was being heavily pressured in the course of the judicial proceedings, and was even beaten on 21 January 2012. 5.10 Finally, the author refers to the concluding observations on the fifth to seventh periodic reports of Kyrgyzstan, adopted by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in which the Committee noted that Uzbeks had been the main victims of the June 2010 events and had been the most prosecuted and condemned. 4 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 3 4 CERD/C/KGZ/CO/5-7 and CCPR/C/KGZ/CO/2. Notably, the Human Rights Committee was “concerned at reports that … some of the Uzbek-language media were closed, including two independent Osh-based Uzbek-language television stations, Mezon TV and Osh TV, following the June 2010 events”. CERD/C/KGZ/CO/5-7, para. 6. 5