CCPR/C/128/D/2339/2014 5.5 In a complaint similar to the claims made by the authors, the European Court of Human Rights found that it was not convinced that the investigation by the authorities was sufficiently prompt, thorough and effective. As an example, the Court said that the administration of the detention centre was aware that the complainant had injuries but the inquiry thereon was undertaken only one year later. The prosecutor’s office investigating the allegations did not take into consideration the medical documentation prepared by the detention centre. The courts did not rectify these deficiencies but simply accepted the investigation results.3 5.6 The authors note that the State party also contends that during the court hearings, Mr. Temirbulatov and Mr. Alarkhanov announced that they were not subjected to any form of physical pressure. Mr. Barakhaev stated that his complaint was properly considered. In this connection, Mr. Temirbulatov, Mr. Alarkhanov and Mr. Barakhaev emphasize that at the time, they were concerned for their safety and the safety of their families. For all six authors, the State party is not able to provide any details on how, in practice, their torture claims have been investigated, and by which exact State body. 5.7 In this connection, the authors emphasize that the Committee should use the same approach used in Usaev v. Russian Federation,4 where it found a violation of articles 7 and 14 (3) (g) since the State party failed to provide any explanations on how and by whom the author’s complaints were investigated. The Committee came to the same conclusion in its decision in Khoroshenko v. Russian Federation. 5 In that case as well, after the author complained about mistreatment, the State party questioned only relevant officials and the investigator. No criminal investigation on the torture complaint was initiated. These circumstances led the Committee to believe that the author had made all reasonable attempts to collect evidence in support of his claims, and where further clarification depended on information exclusively in the hands of the State party, the Committee could consider the author’s allegations to be substantiated in the absence of satisfactory evidence or explanations to the contrary presented by the State party.6 5.8 The authors reiterate that they complained about torture that was aimed at forcing them to confess guilt. In some cases, the authors provided the names of the officials involved. The authors asked for medical examinations. In some cases, these examinations were carried out, and their injuries were found to confirm their complaints. In other cases, medical examinations were refused, without justification. When the State party did take some steps to investigate, the investigation was assigned to one of the officials who was suspected of inflicting torture. 5.9 Regarding the issue of interpretation, the authors claim that they complained about the lack of interpretation immediately after their arrests and during the preliminary investigation, especially during interrogations, to which the State party provided no explanation. 5.10 In its response, the State party claims that all authors received a copy of the indictment against them on 13 September 2005. The authors explain that they never questioned that fact; rather, they claim that they were never informed of the reasons for arrest or the charges against them, and that they were not brought promptly before a judge. Moreover, during the initial arrest and detention, the authors did not receive timely assistance from a lawyer and an interpreter. According to article 14 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the defendant has a right to be informed of charges against him or her in a language he or she can understand. In Khoroshenko v. Russian Federation, the Committee found a violation of 14 (3) (a) as the author was informed of some of the charges against him only 25 days after his arrest.7 5.11 The authors also do not challenge the fact that they were assisted by lawyers during the court hearings. However, they claim that they did not have access to a lawyer immediately after arrest, especially during the interrogations. For example, having been 3 4 5 6 7 6 The authors refer to European Court of Human Rights, Tangiev v. Russian Federation (application No. 27610/05), judgment of 11 December 2012, paras. 58–63. The authors refer to Usaev v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/99/D/1577/2007). See Khoroshenko v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/101/D/1304/2004). The authors refer to Zyuskin v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/102/D/1605/2007), para. 11.4. Khoroshenko v. Russian Federation, para. 9.6.