CCPR/C/120/D/2532/2015 the grounds that it found no reason to doubt the admissibility or credibility of the evidence on which the judgment of the District Court of 25 December 2009 had been based. 2.12 On an unspecified date,16 the author submitted a request for a supervisory review of the decision of the District Court of 25 December 2009, and the decision of the Supreme Court of Tatarstan of 12 March 2010, to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. On 13 December 2010, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, sitting in a composition of a single judge, dismissed the author’s request on the grounds that the judge had come to the same conclusion regarding the evidence presented in the case as the Court in its decision of 25 December 2009, and upheld that decision and the decision of the Supreme Court of Tatarstan of 12 March 2010. 2.13 On an unspecified date, the author submitted to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation a request for a supervisory review of the Supreme Court decision of 13 December 2010. By a letter of the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 28 October 2011,17 stating that no violations by the court of cassation had been found, the Supreme Court refused to quash the decision of 13 December 2010 and to initiate a supervisory review. 2.14 As to the alleged torture, on an unspecified date, the author filed a motion to the Vakhitovsky District Court of Kazan to open a criminal case against two investigators “K.” and “Sh.”, which was rejected without consideration on 27 February 2010 on the grounds that it was not in the Court’s competence to open criminal proceedings against the investigators. In a letter dated 31 March 2010, the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of Tatarstan upheld this rejection. The author and the Chair of the non-governmental organization Committee for Civil Rights (on behalf of the author) also filed several motions with the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation concerning the methods used against the author during the investigation. On 2 August 2010, the author filed a complaint with the Prosecutor General that was transmitted to the Prosecutor of Tatarstan and rejected by the latter on 3 September 2010. 2.15 On 28 August 2011, the Department of Internal Affairs of Kazan took a decision not to open a criminal case against the police officers who had allegedly ill-treated the author.18 On 18 May 2012, the Office of the Prosecutor of Tatarstan upheld the decision of 28 August 2011. 2.16 On 30 November 2011, the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation dismissed the author’s request to initiate criminal investigation into his allegations of torture. On 24 March 2012, the author appealed under the supervisory review proceedings to the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, asking again for a criminal case to be opened against the police officers and the investigators from the Department of Internal Affairs of Kazan, and challenging again the decision of the Soviet District Court of Kazan of 25 December 2009. 2.17 On 21 May 2012, the Office of the Prosecutor of Tatarstan ordered a further investigation to be carried out and completed by 13 June 2012, in particular with regard to the allegations of the use of unlawful methods by the police. 2.18 On 5 July 2012, the author filed another motion with the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, requesting the authorities to investigate the unlawful investigative methods used against him during the investigation. On 12 July 2012, the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation forwarded the author’s complaint of 27 June 2012 for further investigation and, on 31 July 2012, the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation informed the author that the Prosecutor of Tatarstan had been instructed to investigate the author’s allegations of torture. On 28 August 2012, the Office of the 16 17 18 4 According to the State party submission, 17 November 2010, the author raised his allegations of torture for the first time in his request for supervisory review. This document is not in the file. The Deputy President of the Supreme Court referred to the author’s claims about procedural violations of his rights, notably the violation of his right to defence because he had not been given the possibility to take part in the judicial debates in person and the use of violence against him in the pretrial investigation. The decision is part of the file.