CCPR/C/115/D/2052/2011 brought to the police station on 3 May 2005 at 9 a.m.8 and that he was released the same day without having been subjected to any beatings while in police custody. 4.6 The State party further submits that additional witnesses — B.B., Y.S. and G.B., among others — testified that on 3 May 2005 they saw Mr. Akmatov leaving the police department without any “visible bodily injuries”. 4.7 The State party points out that the authorities questioned more than 60 witnesses and conducted four forensic examinations, for which the body had to be exhumed, but failed to identify any person “with any connection to committing a crime”. The investigation failed to yield any evidence that Mr. Akmatov had been beaten by police officers. 4.8 The State party submits that the investigation into the death of Mr. Akmatov was carried out “superficially”, that the evidence was recorded improperly and that the perpetrators could not therefore be identified during the first four months of the investigation, which is why it was suspended on 24 September 2005. 4.9 On 5 September 2005, an autopsy confirmed the cause of death from blunt trauma to the brain, but could not exclude that the trauma had not been caused by “falling down”. Nonetheless, the investigators failed to ascertain whether Mr. Akmatov had indeed fallen and the location of the incident. 4.10 On 29 June 2005, near Mirza-Aki, the head of the local police station, Z.T., had an “altercation” with the author during which Z.T. “twisted” the author’s fingers, causing “bodily injuries”. On 18 July 2005, the Osh regional prosecutor’s office initiated a criminal investigation into this fact. The investigation was discontinued 9 on 30 June 2006.10 4.11 The State party submits that, on an unspecified date, the author’s lawyer petitioned the Osh City Court to reopen the investigation into the death. The petition was rejected by the Osh City Court on 11 January 2011 and again, on appeal, by the Osh Regional Court, on 15 February 2011. The State party also submits that counsel did not appeal this decision under the supervisory review procedure. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In his letters dated 10 November 2011 and 6 April 2012, the author, responding to the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits, submits that the present communication should be considered by the Committee as admissible. Referring to the Committee’s jurisprudence in Akhadov v. Kyrgyzstan 11 and other cases, he considers the supervisory review proceedings discretionary in nature. 5.2 The author reiterates his position regarding the violations of the Covenant. He submits that the injuries to his son could not have been caused by anything other than torture in police custody, and that torture was the reason why his son ended up dead. That was especially clear in the light of the fact that the State party failed to put forward any plausible explanation for the events of 3 May 2005. The final forensic medical review of 19 March 2008 confirmed that the injury to the victim was from the impact of a blunt, hard object and that the “contact” took place “a few hours before death”. 8 9 10 11 This time seems to contradict the State party’s submission in para. 4.4. The State party provides no reason for the discontinuation. The State party submits that on 14 April 2006 the officer in question was fired from the police for acts that “discredited” the name of the law enforcement officer. It is unclear whether this dismissal was related to the incident with the author of the communication. See, among others, communication No. 1503/2006, Akhadov v. Kyrgyzstan, Views adopted on 25 March 2011, para. 5.5. 7