CCPR/C/130/D/2526/2015 was violated. As the resolution was adopted prior to the end of the author’s trial, his right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty was also violated. 3.2 The author claims a violation of his rights under article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant, as the first-instance court failed to notify him of the date of the trial and sentenced him in absentia. In this connection, he alleges a violation of article 14 (3) (e) of the Covenant, because he was not able to examine witnesses who testified against him or to have defence witnesses questioned. 3.3 The author alleges a violation of his rights under articles 2 (1) and 27 of the Covenant, claiming that the judgment was discriminatory against him due to his Uzbek ethnicity. 3.4 Finally, he claims a violation of his rights under article 17 of the Covenant, because as a result of the unfair trial against him, his honour was besmirched, he was labelled as a criminal and his family life was affected. He and his family had to escape abroad and are deprived of the possibility of return to their home country. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In a note verbale dated 15 July 2015, the State party provided its observations on admissibility and the merits, confirming that the author had exhausted all available domestic remedies with regard to his allegations. The State party contests a number of assertions made by the author as lies. 4.2 The State party points out that the author himself indicates that political and interethnic tension escalated at the time when the events in question took place. Therefore, the author was fully aware of the gravity of the situation, which could easily result in further escalation of the conflict. 4.3 The State party submits that following the coup of 7 April 2010, many latent threats, such as regionalism, nationalism and separatism, significantly intensified. According to the State party, the Mezon TV channel repeatedly broadcast the rally in Jalalabad, and this repeated transmission undoubtedly served as a catalyst for the conflict. In this regard, the State party argues that the author has distorted the circumstances of this key episode in order to escape liability. 4.4 The State party refutes the author’s affirmation that citizens of Uzbek ethnicity and citizens of Kyrgyz ethnicity took part in the rally, and argues that only ethnic Uzbeks were present. It also contests the assertion that the video of the rally was broadcast once and only lasted for four to seven minutes. It states that this false contention is easily refuted by ample evidence. Moreover, the version that was broadcast was more complete than the version available on the Internet, and featured scenes inciting inter-ethnic hatred, which have apparently been edited out of its online version. 4.5 The State party concludes that the author, while being fully aware of the potential consequences of his actions, contributed to the mobilization of Uzbek youth around separatist leaders, even though he continues to deny the obvious causal link between the events in Jalalabad and the conflict in Osh in June 2010. 4.6 The State party also asserts that the military and security forces participated in the conflict without taking the side of either rival party. The State party challenges the author’s assertion that on 10 June 2010 at 4 a.m. there was a television broadcast featuring the mayor of Osh and a representative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, calling for calm. It adds that the events in question only started late in the evening of the same day, making it impossible for the said television broadcast to be shown early in the morning. For the same reason, the State party denies the author’s affirmation that he could not reach his home for two days. 4.7 The State party further denies the author’s assertion that Parliament did not have the authority to make any conclusions prior to the judgment delivered by the courts. It clarifies that the legislature is fully entitled to discuss the outcome of the activities of the fact-finding commissions that it has established. At the same time, such discussions do not interfere with the independence of the judiciary, and the final verdict is pronounced exclusively by a court. 3