Advance unedited version CEDAW/C/77/D/133/2018 use a plastic bucket, visible to other cellmates and male guards. These factors led the author to suffer both physically and mentally, and she had to request medical assistance twice in this facility. 2.7 From 9 October to 5 December 2014 and from 17 February to 5 March 2015, 1 the author was detained in the Nooken temporary isolation ward. Here as well, the author was held in a small cell with a concrete floor. No bedding was pro vided. The author could not read in the cell, had no access to water, television, newspapers, fresh air or natural light. In this facility, the author again had to use a bucket for toilet needs, and she was visible to male guards and other cellmates. The author submits that she needlessly suffered owing to the lack of proper conditions. 2.8 From 25 December to 27 December 2014, the author was held at the Bazar Korgon temporary isolation ward. Here, the author’s complaints are identical to those listed for the other isolation wards. 2.9 The author further submits that she exhausted all available domestic remedies. From 5 June 2015, she filed several complaints to the Office of the Prosecutor of the Jalalabad region regarding conditions of detention. She recei ved a reply from the Internal Affairs Department of the Jalalabad region in August 2015, which recognized that the living conditions in the detention facilities of the region were poor, but that it was impossible to change them without government funding. 2.10 On 26 November 2015, the author started civil proceedings in the Jalalabad City Court complaining about the conditions of detention. She claims that as a result, her advocate received threats from the head of the pre-trial detention facility in Jalalabad. 2 On 18 February 2016, the Court rejected her complaint on the grounds of a lack of violation of the law. 2.11 On 24 February 2016, the author appealed to the Regional Court of Jalalabad. On 7 May 2016, the Court repealed the decision of 18 February 2016 and sent the case for new consideration by the City Court of Jalalabad. On 17 May 2016, the City Court of Jalalabad rejected the complaint. 2.12 On 9 June 2016, the representative of the author filed another complaint to the City Court of Jalalabad. On 27 June 2016, the Court rejected the complaint, finding that the complaint could not be considered within the framework of a civil procedure. 2.13 On 26 July 2016, the Regional Court of Jalalabad confirmed the decision of the City Court of Jalalabad of 27 June 2016. 2.14 On 6 December 2016, the representative of the author appealed the decision of 26 July within the supervisory review procedure. The Supreme Court of Kyrgyzstan refused to re-examine the lower courts’ decisions. 2.15 On 21 December 2015, the representative of the author complained to the Tash-Komur City Court. On 31 March 2016, the Court rejected the complaint owing to the lack of proper power of attorney for the representative. 2.16 After obtaining power of attorney, the representative of the author filed another complaint to the Tash-Komur City Court on 9 June 2016. On 20 June 2016, the Court returned the complaints since the pretrial procedure for resolving a dispute had not been observed. __________________ 1 2 Dates as submitted by author. After a complaint to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Office of the Prosecutor in Jalalabad, the Chair of the pretrial detention facility was found liable for violations of service discipline. 3/10

Select target paragraph3