CCPR/C/128/D/2339/2014 it is not precluded under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from considering the communication for all six authors. 8.6 The Committee further notes the State party’s argument that the authors did not file complaints about the refusal of the prosecutor’s office to initiate a criminal case against the alleged torture perpetrators. The Committee notes that the authors already exercised their rights to raise a complaint with the court as part of the criminal case against them, both during the initial trial and in the second instance appeal to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, and that their appeals were rejected on 2 May 2007. Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from considering the communication for all six authors on this ground. 8.7 The Committee has taken note of claims made by two of the authors – Mr. Taysumov and Mr. Temirbulatov – that they were called terrorists, in violation of their right to a presumption of innocence under articles 14 (2) (see paras. 5.3 and 7.3 above) and (3) (a) and (b) of the Covenant. In the absence of any further explanation or pertinent information on file, however, the Committee considers that the authors have failed to sufficiently substantiate these allegations for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, it declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.8 The Committee considers that the authors have sufficiently substantiated the remaining claims under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (3), 9 (1)–(4) and 14 (3) (g), of the Covenant, for the purposes of admissibility. It therefore declares them admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee first notes the authors’ claims that upon apprehension, they were tortured in order to force them to confess guilt, and that subsequently those confessions were retained as evidence against them in court, despite their numerous retractions and their complaints of torture, including complaints made during the trial, and in the framework of their cassation appeal. The Committee notes the claims made by the authors, including that Mr. Yashuev was subjected to prolonged beatings with shovel handles and electrocution; Mr. Barakhaev was beaten with rubber sticks, fists and an iron whip, in addition to being subjected to electrocution; Mr. Taysumov was kicked with boots, beaten with sticks and suffocated using a gas mask; Mr. Temirbulatov was sleep deprived and suffocated; Mr. Yusupov was suffocated using a plastic bag and was subjected to threats against a family member; and Mr. Alarkhanov was beaten and members of his family were threatened. The Committee notes that according to the authors, these acts occurred while they all were held incommunicado, as their initial apprehension was only recognized several days later, or in some cases, weeks later (see paras. 2.3–2.5 above). The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the authors’ claims were properly assessed by the courts, without providing further explanations. The Committee considers that, in the circumstances of the present case, and in particular in the light of the State party’s inability to provide detailed explanations regarding the treatment the authors were subjected to during their initial apprehension, due weight must be given to the authors’ allegations. 9.3 Regarding the State party’s obligation to properly investigate the authors’ torture claims, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which criminal investigation and consequential prosecution are necessary remedies for violations of human rights such as those protected by article 7 of the Covenant.11 The Committee notes that the material on file does not allow it to conclude that the investigation into the allegations of torture was carried out promptly or effectively or that any perpetrators were identified, despite detailed reports from the authors, witness statements, requests for medical examinations and, for one of the authors – Mr. Yashuev – a medical certificate showing signs of injury. 9.4 The Committee considers that in the present case, the inquiry that was conducted in 2005 into the authors’ allegations of torture lacked the element of impartiality (see para. 5.4 11 10 See the Committee’s general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 14; and its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 18.