CCPR/C/128/D/2339/2014 defendants stated that they did not speak Russian well, and an interpreter participated in court hearings. The judge asked whether all defendants had received a copy of the indictment against them, which they confirmed having received on 13 September 2005. Mr. Yusupov, Mr. Taysumov, Mr. Alarkhanov and Mr. Yashuev also received a Chechen language version. During the court hearings, all defendants were represented by lawyers. Other lawyers, both those retained by the authors and by the court, also participated during further court hearings. The authors never asked the court to remove counsel or provide them with additional time to prepare their defence. 4.8 In conclusion, the State party submits that the investigation and the court hearings were held in strict compliance with national legislation and the State party’s international obligations. In the circumstances, the authors’ communication to the Committee can be considered as an abuse of the right of the submission, in violation of article 3 of the Optional Protocol. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 13 June 2014, the authors submitted that their communication should be considered admissible. The State party itself does not seem to challenge the fact that four of the authors – Mr. Yashuev, Mr. Barakhaev, Mr. Yusupov and Mr. Alarkhanov – have exhausted domestic remedies. The authors Mr. Taysumov and Mr. Temirbulatov contend that the supervisory review procedure cannot be considered as an effective remedy, since this procedure is fully discretionary. The European Court of Human Rights takes the same approach on the supervisory review. 1 Furthermore, the Court also considered that the supervisory review requests create a legal uncertainty since the requests are not time-bound. 5.2 The Committee’s approach to the requirement of the exhaustion of domestic remedies is quite clear: authors are not required to exhaust those remedies that they consider to have no objective chances of success.2 In its response, the State party confirms that those authors who went through this procedure obtained no tangible results. In a majority of cases of supervisory review requests, the Supreme Court refuses to hear complaints. 5.3 The authors of the communication also note that the State party does not dispute some of their claims, and therefore, the Committee must consider them as facts. For example, the State party does not dispute the violations of articles 9 (1)–(4), namely that the authors were subjected to unlawful arrest and detention, that they were not informed about charges against them or the reasons for arrest, and that they were not brought promptly before a judge. The State party cannot challenge the fact that Mr. Yashuev was held in isolation from 7 November to 1 December 2004. He presented a detailed report about the torture and inhuman treatment against him, as well as a medical certificate with an assessment of his injuries. Mr. Barakhaev was held in isolation from 3 to 25 October 2004, and also provided a detailed report regarding the torture and other cruel treatment that he experienced. Mr. Taysumov was held in isolation from 29 September to 20 October 2004, and reported in detail the torture that he experienced. Mr. Temirbuatov was held in isolation from 29 September to 20 October 2004, and provided a detailed report of the torture that he experienced. Mr. Yusupov was held in isolation from 28 October to 1 November 2004, and provided a similar detailed report, as did Mr. Alarkhanov, who was held in isolation from 19 to 21 February 2005. In addition, the mass media referred to Mr. Taysumov and Mr. Temirbulatov as terrorists, which violated their right to the presumption of innocence. 5.4 Regarding the State party’s refusal to open an investigation into the authors’ torture complaints, it has to be noted that the preliminary verification stage cannot be considered to constitute a thorough or effective investigation. The same investigator who was implicated in the authors’ claims, H.A.S., decided not to initiate a criminal investigation on the basis of the authors’ complaints. Therefore, this examination cannot be considered to be independent or impartial, as required by international human rights standards. This occurred despite detailed reports from the authors and despite the existence of corresponding medical certificates. 1 2 The authors refer to European Court of Human Rights, Pitkevich v. Russia (application No. 47936/99), decision of 8 February 2001. The authors refer to Lansman et al v. Finland (CCPR/C/83/D/1023/2001). 5