Sigareva v Uzbekistan, UN Human Rights Committee (2000) (excerpts)

Sigareva v Uzbekistan, UN Human Rights Committee Communication 907/2000 (excerpts)

(...)

6.3 The author alleges that her son's right to properly prepare his defence was violated, because during the preliminary investigation, Mr. Siragev's lawyer was prevented from seeing him confidentially, and because counsel was allowed to examine the Tashkent City Court's records only shortly before the hearing in the Supreme Court. In support of her allegation, she produces a copy of counsel's request for an adjournment, addressed to the Supreme Court on 17 December 1999, which affirms that under different pretexts, counsel had been denied access to the Tashkent City Court's records. This request was dismissed by the Supreme Court, allegedly without any explanation. On appeal, counsel claimed that he was unable to meet privately with his client to prepare his defence; the Supreme Court allegedly failed to address this issue as well The State party has not challenged this, it has only merely affirmed that Mr. Siragev was represented by a lawyer during preliminary investigation. In the absence of any other observations from the State party on this claim, the Committee considers that article 14, paragraph 3 (b), has been violated in the instant case.