CAT/C/51/D/441/2010 8.5 As to the State party’s argument concerning the complainant’s failure to exhaust the available domestic remedies within the supervisory review proceedings with the Supreme Court and the General Prosecutor’s Office, the Committee notes that the complainant appealed the judgement of 16 June 2009 of the Astana City Court to the Supreme Court. His appeal was rejected and the judgment of the lower court entered into force on 10 November 2009. In this regard, the Committee observes that, even considering that the supervisory review proceedings may be effective in some instances, the State party has not provided any evidence as to the effectiveness of these proceedings in cases of torture. The Committee further takes note of the statistical figures provided by the State party, intended to demonstrate that a supervisory review was an effective remedy (i.e. in 2010, 48 persons were acquitted in the framework of the supervisory review proceedings, while during the first half of 2011, 13 persons were acquitted.). However, the State party has not shown whether and in how many cases supervisory review procedures were successfully applied in cases concerning torture and where conviction was based on forced confessions obtained under torture. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the State party has not provided sufficient information to demonstrate the effectiveness of filing a complaint before the General Prosecutor’s Office and the Supreme Court under the supervisory review procedure about ill-treatment or torture, following the entry into force of the final decision of a court. 8.6 The Committee recalls that the rule of exhaustion of all domestic remedies does not apply if the application of domestic remedies has been or would be unreasonably prolonged or would be unlikely to bring effective relief.7 In this connection and in the circumstances described above, the Committee notes that the complainant, his relatives and his lawyer have made reasonable efforts and attempts to have domestic remedies exhausted, but without success. Accordingly, the Committee is not precluded by the requirements of article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention from considering the communication on the merits. 8.7 With reference to article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention and rule 111 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, the Committee finds no other obstacle to the admissibility of the communication and proceeds to its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 9.2 The Committee notes that the complainant has alleged a violation of article 1, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention, on the grounds that the State party failed in its duty to prevent and punish acts of torture. These provisions are applicable insofar as the acts to which the complainant was subjected are considered acts of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention.8 In this respect, the Committee notes the complainant’s detailed description of the treatment he was subjected to while in police custody and of the content of forensic medical report No. 3393 of 10 December 2008 documenting the physical injuries inflicted on him to force him to confess his guilt in a multiple murder, robbery and other crimes. The Committee considers that the treatment as described by the complainant can be characterized as severe pain and suffering inflicted deliberately by officials with a view to obtaining a forced confession. The State party, while not contesting the conclusions of the medical report, denies any involvement by officials. It 7 8 14 See, e.g., communication No. 024/1995, A.E. v. Switzerland, decision of 2 May 1995, para. 4. See communication No. 269/2005, Ali Ben Salem v. Tunisia, decision of 7 November 2007, para.16.4.