CAT/C/51/D/441/2010 supervising the case, while complaints about decisions or actions of the prosecutor are to be submitted to a higher prosecutor. Moreover, if a person’s rights have been violated due to prosecutors’ or investigators’ refusal to initiate criminal proceedings, the person concerned can complain to a court under article 109 of the criminal procedure code. However, if a criminal case has already been brought to court, pursuant to article 284 of the code, all complaints regarding that case are to be submitted to the court examining that case. 6.10 The State party describes in detail how and by what evidence the complainant’s guilt was established, and explains that the principle of presumption of innocence has been observed in his case. 6.12 As to the effectiveness of domestic remedies, in particular complaining to courts and to the General Prosecutor’s Office, the State party notes that under the provisions of the constitution and the national laws, a citizen has a right to legal protection against any infringement of his or her rights. According to article 83 of the constitution, the Prosecutor’s Office supervises the actions of, inter alia, investigators and investigative authorities to ensure that they are lawful. Any complaint alleging unlawful means of investigation is duly verified by the Prosecutor’s Office. 6.13 In light of the above considerations, the State Party maintains that the complainant’s rights under articles 1, 2, 12, 13, 14 and 15, of the Convention have not been violated in the present case. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 7.1 On 15 November 2011, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. He reiterates his previous submissions (see paras. 2.2–2.4 above) and comments. Regarding the State party’s contention that his complaints of torture were duly examined on 24 December 2008 and 16 March and 8 June 2009, the complainant notes that in fact he was informed of only one decision – that of 8 June 2009, when an investigator of the Internal Security Division of the Department of Internal Affairs of Astana refused to initiate criminal proceedings into his allegations. The complainant, his parents and his lawyer were unaware of any other examinations of his claims of torture. He was never questioned regarding his claims of torture, even though he identified the police officers who had ill-treated him to the prosecutor who interrogated him on 10 December 2008, invoked the findings of the forensic medical examination report of 10 December 2008 and stated that his injuries could be seen on the video recording of his interrogations of 10 and 16 December 2008 (which, as it later transpired, got lost as per the police explanations). On the State party contention that one of the refusals to initiate criminal proceedings into his allegations was issued on 16 March 2009 by the Internal Inspectorate of the Department of Interior Affairs, the complainant explains that he did not know on what grounds such a decision was adopted or who approached the Inspectorate and notes that he learned about this decision only on 26 May 2009 in the context of a court hearing. 7.2 As to his statement admitting to having murdered the family of A.E. (see para. 6.3 above), he submits that he was coerced into giving this statement. He adds that the State party has not addressed his statement that, inter alia, the interrogation of 10 December 2008 was recorded on video, but that the video recording had later disappeared and notes that the State party has not commented on the results of forensic medical examination report No. 3393 of 10 December 2008 (see para. 2.3 above). Furthermore, he had refused the services of a lawyer appointed to him on the first day and the subsequent lawyer provided ex officio had only six months of professional experience and was not impartial. The complainant’s requests to have another lawyer appointed to him were disregarded. In addition, he maintains that not all investigative actions were performed in the presence of his lawyer (e.g. when he was coerced into confessing his guilt). He reiterates that the judiciary in Kazakhstan is not independent and that the Prosecutor’s Office has a dominating role. The 11