CCPR/C/115/D/2052/2011 3.3 He submits that the State party has not provided any plausible alternative explanation or evidence regarding the exact manner in which the victim could have received those fatal injuries. The testimonies of several witnesses strongly indicate that the beatings were administered by police officers and, therefore, the author sets forth that the State party is responsible for the arbitrary deprivation of life of his son, in violation of article 6 (1) of the Covenant. 3.4 Furthermore, the author submits that the treatment inflicted by the police officers during his son’s time in the police station amounted to torture, and as such constitutes a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 3.5 The author also alleges that the State party has failed to provide adequate safeguards to protect the victim’s life and to protect him from torture, in violation of articles 6 (1) and 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant. The State party has also failed to prevent the unlawful detention by the police of the author’s son and failed to provide the victim with access to a lawyer during the detention. 3.6 The author finally submits that the State party has failed to conduct an independent, impartial, thorough, timely and effective investigation, in violation of articles 6 (1) and 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant. In failing to conduct such an investigation, the State party has also failed to provide adequate remedy, since it has effectively prohibited the family of the victim from bringing forward civil proceedings for compensation for the harm suffered. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In its note verbale of 6 September 2011, the State party submits its observations on admissibility and the merits of the complaint. It notes that on 4 May 2005 the police was alerted about the death of Turdubek Akmatov. Investigators from the local police department and prosecutors from Uzgen district were dispatched and an autopsy was ordered. 4.2 The result of the autopsy revealed that Mr. Akmatov had died from haemorrhaging beneath the brain tunic and cerebellum tissues. Several large bruises, abrasions and lacerations were also found on the body, which were caused by blunt force. The autopsy also revealed bleeding of the ear, bruised lips and bruises on the wrist, which could have been caused by blows inflicted by a fist or by a foot in a shoe. 4.3 On 25 May 2005, the investigators of the Uzgen prosecutor’s office initiated a criminal investigation into the death of the author’s son. That investigation was extended and suspended5 several times because it was not possible to identify the alleged perpetrator or perpetrators of the crime. The investigation was last suspended on 8 July 2009. 4.4 The State party submits that Mr. Akmatov was brought to the police station at 3 p.m. following complaints received from his neighbours that he had stolen the doors of their residence. It also submits that, after carrying out “prophylactic work”6 with Mr. Akmatov, who then signed a statement,7 the police released him at 7 p.m. and that he arrived home at 9.45 p.m. 4.5 The State party also submits that, during the investigation into the death of Mr. Akmatov, several officers were questioned. They confirmed that Mr. Akmatov had been 5 6 7 6 The suspension was based on article 221, paragraph 1 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Kyrgyzstan. The State party provides no further explanation of the term “prophylactic work”. No copy of the statement has been provided, and its content has not been described.