CAT/C/53/D/495/2012 subsequent failure to investigate his allegations of torture amounted to violations by Kazakhstan of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention. 3.2 The complainant submits that the violations against her son occurred in 2006. While Kazakhstan made its declaration under article 22 of the Convention only on 21 February 2008, the complainant argues that the violations of her son’s rights continued after 21 February 2008 and that the violations led to results that are violations of the Convention per se. 3.3 The complainant claims that by failing to conduct an effective investigation into claims of torture, the State party has continued to violate her son’s rights after the declaration under article 22 of the Convention was made by Kazakhstan. She contends that the State party has an obligation to investigate allegations of torture and, in cases where it is necessary, to provide remedies both to the victims of violations and to members of their families. 3.4 The complainant also claims that her son continues to suffer from health problems resulting from the physical injuries he received as a direct result of torture. She claims that this is further evidence that the violation of the Convention by the State party continues. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 5 June 2012, the State party submitted that, on 2 April 2007, the complainant’s son had been convicted under article 251, paragraph 4, article 257, paragraph 2 (a) and (b), article 321, paragraph 2, and article 58, paragraph 3, of the Criminal Code and sentenced to seven years of imprisonment. The State party reiterates the content of the verdict. 3 On 15 May 2007, the Kostanay Regional Court confirmed the verdict upon appeal. On 7 August 2007, the Supreme Court rejected the supervisory review request filed by the lawyer of the complainant’s son. The Office of the Prosecutor-General on several occasions reviewed the complaints of E.Z. regarding the illegality of the verdict against him and regarding the use of unlawful means of investigation. The investigation of the claims showed that the guilt of the accused had been proven by the entirety of the evidence presented at the court hearings and in particular by the testimonies of the victims. The medical examination of E.Z. showed that at the time of the incident he was intoxicated. During the court hearings the court interrogated police officers; from their testimonies, it could be concluded that at the time of his arrest, E.Z. already bore several injuries that he had sustained during the fight at a nightclub on 16 September 2006. The injuries were recorded and the medical expertise concluded that the injuries corresponded to the timing and the circumstances of the case. The court investigation also revealed that several relatives of the complainant’s son were employed in the police station that investigated the case against him, including in the investigation department. The court concluded that the above excluded the possibility that officers of that police station had exercised violence against E.Z. 4.2 The State party maintains that no violations of the criminal procedure legislation that would lead to the revocation or amendment of the verdict had been detected. No grounds for initiating a supervisory review had been found. The State party also submits that at the 3 4 According to the verdict, at 1 a.m. on 16 September 2006, the complainant’s son and his friend, heavily intoxicated, got into a fight with several individuals in front of the Cultural Centre in the village of Kamensk-Uralsk. The complainant’s son shot a hunting rifle into the air and attempted to knife one of his opponents. A local police officer came to the scene and attempted to confiscate the hunting weapon, but the complainant’s son and his friend got into their vehicle and tried to drive away. The police officer attempted to stop them by getting into the vehicle and placing the gear stick in the neutral position. The complainant’s son and his friend proceeded to beat the police officer until he lost consciousness and then drove away.