CAT/C/53/D/495/2012 time of its submission there was no information regarding any complaints filed by the complainant’s son, because in accordance with Order No. 28 of 21 January 2002 of the Ministry of Justice, all records regarding complaints of detainees in pretrial detention centres (SIZOs) are kept only for five years. Records regarding placements of inmates in cells are kept only for one year and therefore no records are available regarding with whom the complainant’s son had been detained. The State party also submits that on an unspecified date, the Prosecutor’s Office of Kostanay Region interrogated the management of the SIZO, but the latter stated that, since the event took place a long time ago, they no longer remembered the detainee, and denied that any physical or psychological pressure on detainees had taken place. 4.3 The State party further submits that, on 26 September 2006, the Department of Internal Affairs of Kostanay received from the Prosecutor’s Office a complaint submitted by the lawyer of E.Z. regarding injuries inflicted on him by police officers. Following a verification, a senior investigator, on 23 November 2006, refused to initiate a criminal investigation, on the basis of article 37, paragraph 1 (2), of the Criminal Procedure Code. The refusal was revoked by a decision of the Prosecutor’s Office of Kostanay of 20 December 2006 and a criminal investigation was initiated on charges against unknown perpetrators, under article 104, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Code. In the course of the investigation officers of the SIZO and medical personnel were questioned, but the investigation did not confirm the allegations of the complainant’s son. Criminal charges were raised against one Mr. P., who admitted hitting Mr. M. Other witnesses also admitted hitting the complainant’s son and Mr. M. However, Mr. P. died from a shotgun wound on 17 October 2006. On 30 May 2007 the criminal charges against Mr. P. were dropped and the investigation was discontinued. On 4 October 2007, the Prosecutor’s Office declared the decision to discontinue the criminal investigation illegal, revoked it and redirected the case for additional investigation. The criminal investigation was discontinued again, on 28 December 2007, by a senior investigator, on the basis of article 50, paragraph 1 (1), of the Criminal Procedure Code. On 4 February 2008, the criminal investigation was reopened by an order of the Prosecutor’s Office of Mendykara District. On 28 February 2008, the investigation was again discontinued on the basis of article 50, paragraph 1 (1), of the Criminal Procedure Code. On 11 March 2008, the Prosecutor’s Office of Mendykara District confirmed the decision to discontinue the investigation. 4.4 Furthermore, the State party submits that on 26 February 2007, the complainant and the mother of Mr. M. filed a complaint with the Department of Internal Affairs regarding the beatings of their sons by officers of the Mendykara police station. On 14 March 2007, a senior investigator issued a decision to refuse to bring criminal charges against officers, on the basis of article 37, paragraph 1 (2), of the Criminal Procedure Code. The decision was confirmed by the Prosecutor’s Office of Kostanay District by a decision of 24 March 2007. On 22 November 2007, the complainant filed another complaint regarding the beating of her son by officers of the Mendykara police station. On 25 November 2007, an investigator issued a decision to refuse to bring criminal charges against officers, on the basis of article 37, paragraph 1 (8), of the Criminal Procedure Code. That decision was confirmed by the Prosecutor’s Office of Kostanay District in a decision of 5 December 2007. Complainant’s comments 5.1 On 14 August 2012, the complainant submitted that in its response, the State party mainly repeated information as set forth in the case file on the criminal charges against and conviction of her son. She points out that the submission confirms that in the course of the investigation of her son’s allegations of torture while in police detention, only police officers had been questioned. She maintains that therefore the investigation does not meet the criterion of “adequacy/accuracy”. She submits that an investigation must be effective and all steps necessary should be taken “to uncover the facts and circumstances of the 5