CCPR/C/118/D/2317/2013 observation that the medical doctors who examined him upon his transfer to prison No. 64/29 did not find any signs of torture on his body, the author submits that, in accordance with the Committee’s recommendations, the State party should provide independent medical examinations following allegations of torture.3 7.3 The author further states that from 25 to 29 December 2008 he was held in police detention without the proper procedural documents authorizing his arrest having been completed. In response to the State party’s argument that his detention in pretrial detention facility No. 64/1 was lawful, the author submits that, in accordance with article 54 of the criminal implementation code, a convicted person must be transferred to the prison by no later than 10 days after the final court sentence is received by the pretrial detention facility. The author was kept in a pretrial detention facility until 7 September 2009, although the appeal court pronounced the final sentence in his case on 3 March 2009. State party’s further observations 8.1 On 11 December 2015, the State party submitted additional information in response to the author’s comments. According to the State party, the author was represented by a lawyer at all stages of the criminal proceedings. On 25 December 2008, the author was informed that he was suspected of having committed a criminal offence; on the same date he was questioned by an investigator as a suspect in a criminal case, in the presence of a lawyer. On 26 December 2008, he was arrested on the basis of a decree issued by a senior investigator; he and the lawyer signed the document, stating that they were familiar with the content of the decree. The author’s detention was authorized by a court, in the presence of a lawyer, on 27 December 2008. 8.2 The lawyer hired by the author appealed the decision of the first instance court on 9 February 2009. However on 27 February 2009, the date scheduled for the appeal hearing, the lawyer withdrew the appeal. For that reason the author did not participate in the subsequent court hearings initiated by the victims. 8.3 The victims in the case appealed, asking for lesser punishment for the author. Their appeal was rejected on 3 March 2009. The cassation appeal submitted by the author’s counsel was rejected on 11 May 2009, and the appeal under the supervisory review proceedings, submitted by the author’s wife to the Supreme Court, was rejected on 10 December 2009. 8.4 The State party notes that the medical documents submitted by the author did not provide a detailed medical assessment. They reflected only the author’s own statement about his broken ribs and the pain in his lower back and scrotum that had developed gradually after his release from prison. 8.5 The State party reiterates its position that the author’s rights under articles 7, 9 and 14 of the Covenant have not been violated. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Considerations of admissibility 9.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 3 GE.17-01270 The author refers to, among other sources, CCPR/C/HUN/CO/5, para. 14; and communication No. 595/2000, Saimijon and Bazarov v. Uzbekistan, Views adopted on 14 July 2006, para. 8.3. 7