Advance unedited version CCPR/C/133/D/2850/2016 officer. However, the author, who was in another cell sleeping, was also subjected to the beating. He did not resist and was entirely under control of police officers. The author repeats his allegation that in fact he was beaten for his earlier fight with a police officer, therefore, the justification of use of force by the detention officers by the fact that the author resisted, is incorrect. 5.2 The State party states that the force was used legitimately by the police officers under articles 12 and 13 of the Law on internal affairs. The State party, however, refers to no unlawful actions by the author, and, therefore, the reliance to the above Law cannot justify the police actions towards the author. 5.3 Despite the results of the author’s medical-forensic examination proving that he was beaten, the authorities opened no criminal case into the fact of bodily injuries he obtained, and limited themselves to conducting a preliminary investigation. Three officers questioned by the prosecutor justified the use of force by preventing an escape and re-establishing order, relying on the Instruction No. 263. The prosecutor’s decisions state that the author and others tried to escape. However, nothing corroborates this statement, and no criminal case was ever open on charges of attempted escape. The author observes that even if the escape was attempted, the detainees were unarmed and there was no need to use excessive force against them. He also notes that it remains unclear for what purpose detainees from all cells had been brought to the courtyard and subjected to beatings. 5.4 The author reiterates his claims that the investigation failed to question all relevant witnesses. He mentions that the courts rejected his appeals relying on the fact that most detainees retrieved their complaints from the prosecutor’s office and refused to testify. The author states that it was not relevant in his case. Further submissions by the parties 6.1 On 10 November 2017, the State party reiterated its initial observations. 6.2 On 7 December 2017, the author submitted additional comments to the State party’s observations stating that if the State party was implementing duly its obligations, there would have been an effective investigation carried out into his allegations of torture, and a criminal case would have been opened in view of the fact that his injuries have been inflicted in detention, when he was under full control of police officers. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes the author’s claims that his rights under articles 7 and 10 (1) of the Covenant were violated on account of poor conditions of detention in the Issyk-Atynsk pre-trial detention facility. The Committee, however, notes from the material on file, that the author has not raised these claims before the competent domestic authorities. It therefore finds this part of the communication inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 7.4 The Committee finds that the author has sufficiently substantiated his claims concerning the beatings by the detention facility officers and lack of effective investigation under articles 7 and 10 (1) read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, and proceeds with their consideration on the merits. 5