CCPR/C/128/D/2339/2014 the services of an interpreter. According to the records reviewed by the State party, the authors did not file any comments before, during or after their interrogations. In their complaint to the Committee, they also did not claim that they had asked for an interpreter during the investigation, nor did they indicate that such a request was denied. 6.4 A detention measure against the authors was decided by the court within the time limits prescribed by law under article 94 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Accordingly, on the basis of the above-mentioned arguments, the State party submits that no violations of the Covenant occurred during the authors’ detention. 6.5 The State party notes that the authors indicated that they did not have to exhaust domestic remedies if there were no objective reasons to believe that those remedies would be successful. However, being doubtful about the chances of success or effectiveness of the remedy does not absolve the authors from exhausting all domestic remedies. 6.6 Domestic law allows anyone to file a civil complaint (isk) against any government agency, such as the refusal of the prosecutor’s office to initiate a criminal investigation into the authors’ claims of torture. Mr. Taysumov did not file such a complaint. 9 The State party therefore contends that he did not exhaust all available domestic remedies, and that this part of the communication must be declared inadmissible. From the authors 7.1 In a letter dated 20 May 2016, the authors reiterated that four of them – Mr. Yashuev, Mr. Barakhaev, Mr. Yusupov and Mr. Alarkhanov – did file supervisory review requests. Mr. Taysumov and Mr. Temirbulatov did not pursue that remedy since there was no new evidence they could have presented, and because the supervisory review procedure was considered ineffective. 7.2 Regarding the new argument that the authors could have filed a complaint about the refusal of the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic to institute proceedings after its examination of the claims of torture, the authors note that this argument was not provided by the State party in its initial observations dated 11 April 2014. In addition, in Usaev v. Russian Federation, the Committee found a similar complaint admissible. 7.3 The authors note that the State party does not dispute some of their statements, and they request that the Committee consider them as facts. In their new submission, the State party does not challenge that: (a) All six authors were victims of violations of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant, owing to ill-treatment during the investigation; (b) Two of the authors, Mr. Taysumov and Mr. Temirbulatov, were called terrorists, in violation of their right to a presumption of innocence; (c) The authors were compelled to testify against themselves; (d) The authors were not given the timely assistance of a lawyer. 7.4 The State party, in its submission, argues that all investigative actions were undertaken in accordance with the law. The State party describes the formal charges and arrests of the authors, but the authors raise a complaint about their unlawful apprehension prior to the pressing of formal charges, which was not documented and is therefore not included in the materials of the criminal case. Since the State party failed to respond to this part of the allegations, due weight must be given to it. 7.5 Furthermore, in its submission dated 29 January 2016, the State party indicated that during the interrogations, the authors were assisted by interpreters. However, the authors have explained that no interpretation was provided to: 9 8 (a) Mr. Yashuev during his interrogation on 1 December 2004; (b) Mr. Taysumov during his court hearing on 9 November 2004; (c) Mr. Yusupov during his interrogation on 16 June 2005; The State party probably meant to include other authors as well, but this is not clear.