CCPR/C/133/D/2850/2016 Advance unedited version The complaint 3.1 The author claims that the beatings he was subjected to in the Issyk-Atynsk pre-trial detention facility violated his rights under articles 7 and 10 (1) of the Covenant. 3.2 He claims that the lack of effective investigation into his allegations amounted to a violation of articles 7 and 10 (1) in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant. He notes that even if the investigation was reopened 5 times, the prosecutor’s office never identified those responsible for the author’s beatings, although he had named them. The prosecutors questioned only three officers, although many others have been involved in the incident on 14 September 2011. The investigation was superficial and seemed to aim at justifying the use of force by the police officers. Not all witnesses had been questioned either, in particular the members of the monitoring group. 3.3 The author further claims that the poor conditions of detention, as described in the 2011 monitoring report, further exacerbated his suffering while detained, in violation of his rights under articles 7 and 10 (1) of the Covenant. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 By note verbale of 25 May 2017, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and merits. Concerning the incident of 14 September 2011, the State party recalls the facts, as noted in the Issyk-Atynsk district prosecutor’s office decision of 27 September 2011, to the effect that the officer O. was attacked by detainees of cell No.6, when he tried to escort Mr. T. to court. The backup called by the officer had to use force to restore the order, in line with articles 12 and 13 of the Law on internal affairs agencies of Kyrgyzstan. 4.2 On 17 September 2011, several detainees complained about use of force against them by the detention facility officers to the Issyk-Atynsk district prosecutor’s office. The author, who was detained in cell No. 5, appealed similarly. At the same time, 13 detained persons refused to testify, which was documented.6 4.3 According to medical-forensic examination carried out on 19 September 2011, the author had scratches on the chest, which could have been caused by a scratching object and which were consistent with the indicated date of the incident. 4.4 The author’s allegations had been investigated objectively, thoroughly and comprehensively, as shown by the decisions of the higher prosecutor’s offices to repeal the decisions not to open criminal investigation by the Issyk-Atynsk district prosecutor’s office. The latter carried out preliminary inquiry and decided not to open criminal investigation on several occasions due to the absence of corpus delicti in the actions of the detention facility officers. The said officers acted within the framework of articles 12 and 13 of the Law on internal affairs agencies. These provisions lay down the circumstances under which force can be used by law enforcement officers. Such circumstances include prevention and suppression of crime and other offences, apprehension of persons who committed crimes, in cases of resistance to lawful orders of law enforcement, if other nonviolent measures cannot guarantee the achievement of their duties. 4.5 The author appealed in court the last decision of the prosecutor not to open criminal investigation. The courts of all instances, in their decisions dated 25 November 2013, 14 February and 23 April 2014, found the decision of the prosecutor’s office lawful and well grounded, and rejected the author’s appeal. 4.6 In light of the above, the State party concludes that the author’s communication to the Committee is unsubstantiated. Author’s comments to the State party’s observations 5.1 On 26 July 2017, the author submitted his comments to the State party’s observations. He claims that in their investigation, the prosecutors concluded that the use of force in the incident of 14 September 2011 was necessary to re-establish the order in the detention facility. According to the State party, the initiator of the incident, Mr. B. attacked the duty 4