CCPR/C/115/D/2052/2011 2.6 The author submits that, despite this physical evidence and despite requests by the victim’s family for an investigation, the police and prosecution failed to conduct a thorough and impartial criminal investigation. The police went to the family’s home on 4 May 2005, led by Z.T., the officer whom the victim claimed orchestrated the beatings, and then waited 21 days before officially launching the investigation. On 6 May 2005, the author petitioned the Uzgen inter-district prosecutor’s office and the chief executive of Uzgen district to investigate the death of his son. On 25 May 2005, he complained to the President of Kyrgyzstan, noting that the law enforcement authorities had failed to prosecute and punish those responsible for his son’s death despite having “brought this matter to all levels”. According to Kyrgyz law, manslaughter investigations shall be completed within two months, but, on 18 July 2005, the investigation period was extended for an additional three months by a decision of a prosecutor. 2.7 On 4 August 2005, the author sent a complaint to the Ministry of Internal Affairs requesting that steps be taken with respect to the police officers believed to have taken part in the torture of his son. On 10 August 2005, the Ministry issued a report responding to the author’s complaint and recommending that the investigation against the police officers be closed since “questioning of police personnel at the Mirza-Aki police district established that the beating and infliction of bodily injury on T. Akmatov were impossible”, without providing any further reasoning or explanation. 2.8 On 22 August 2005, the Osh regional prosecutor’s office extended the investigation period for an additional four months and ordered an additional medical forensic examination. On 23 September 2005, the supplemental conclusions of the medical forensic review confirmed the injuries identified in the first examination, but did not rule out the possibility that the victim had obtained such injuries by falling down the stairs. On 24 September 2005, the Uzgen district prosecutor’s office decided to suspend the investigation because it could not identify those responsible. 2.9 On 20 April 2006, the prosecutor’s office requested the exhumation of the body and scheduled a medical forensic examination by a commission of experts. On 12 August 2006, the experts agreed that most of the injuries had been caused by blunt, hard objects, but did not exclude the possibility of a fall. On 27 December 2006, the Deputy Prosecutor General rescinded the order to suspend the investigation, extended its period until 19 February 2007 and sent the case to the regional prosecutor’s office. Also on 19 February 2007, the head investigator of the prosecutor’s office suspended the case for a second time. On 1 March 2007, the lawyer petitioned the chief case investigator to question the officer on duty on 3 May 2005, M.E. The questioning took place on 22 April 2007, which is when M.E. recounted having seen police officers torturing the victim. On 16 May 2007, the investigation was extended until 23 June 2007. 2.10 On 21 June 2007, the investigator from the prosecutor’s office again questioned M.E., who retracted his earlier statements. On 23 June 2007, the date of expiration of the latest extension, the investigation was suspended again. On 15 June 2007, following a petition from the family’s lawyer, the prosecutor’s office authorized an independent forensic expert to travel to the incident site and review the conclusions of the earlier autopsy and medical forensic examinations. On 11 October 2007, the expert issued his report, which revealed contusions that had been missed in the previous reports and which excluded the possibility of death resulting from a fall. could have greatly contributed to the death. The commission stated clearly that the injuries could not have been caused by the victim’s fall from a bench. 4