CAT/C/51/D/441/2010 his arrival at the temporary detention centre of the Internal Affairs Department in Astana, the complainant was examined by a medical doctor of the centre and, according to the records in the journal of medical assistance and in the record of his interrogation, no injuries were found on him and he formulated no complaints whatsoever. The complainant was represented by professional attorneys throughout the pretrial investigation and during the trial. 6.3 During his interrogation on 9, 10 and 21 December 2008, as well as on 8 January 2009 (with his counsel absent on 10 December), the complainant confessed, freely, to having murdered the family of A.E. (four persons in total) and a robbery. On 10 December 2008, the complainant was interrogated from 2.30 to 4.20 p.m. and he confessed his guilt. Later in the evening, however, when he was again interrogated (from 5.13 to 6.05 p.m.), he declared that he had confessed his guilt under torture. On the same day, at 8 p.m. a forensic medical examination was performed on the complainant and an injury to his head was found. An investigation was carried out concerning this fact and on 21 December 2008, the Department of Interior Affairs of Astana City concluded that the injury was caused by the fact that the complainant accidently hit his head against roof of the police car while getting inside during his transportation. Thereafter, a number of additional forensic medical examinations were performed on the complainant, but no injuries were revealed. In addition, during the interrogations on 16, 18 and 21 December 2008 and on 8 January 2009, the complainant confessed his guilt. 6.4 The State party maintains that the allegations of torture by the complainant and his family were based only on the complainant’s own statements and the examination of those complaints did not produce objective evidence demonstrating that he had indeed been subjected to torture. In fact, the complainant had never indicated concretely the circumstances of his alleged ill-treatment and never specified by whom, when and where exactly he had been subjected to torture. Consequently, on 8 June 2009, the investigator of the Internal Security Division of the Department of Internal Affairs of Astana refused to initiate a criminal case into the complainant’s allegations. As to the fact that notification of this decision was received by the complainant’s mother only on 26 June 2009 (that is after he was convicted by the court of first instance on 16 June 2009), the State party submits that the complainant, as well as his attorney could have requested the court during the hearing to order the prosecution to produce the said decision. In addition, all the complaints of the complainant and his parents concerning the alleged ill-treatment were duly examined by the competent authorities. Moreover, the complainant’s allegations were also addressed by the national court during his trial before the court of first instance in the absence of a jury, pursuant to article 562, paragraph 5, of the code of criminal procedure, as well as by the Supreme Court and a prosecutor, when his appeal was examined. However, his allegations were found to be unfounded. The complainant’s allegations were examined within the time limits set in national legislation (article 184 of the criminal procedure code). 6.5 As to the complainant’s statement that the investigation into his allegations of torture was initiated only after his parents’ complaint of January 2009 and not following his oral complaint to the prosecutor on 10 December 2008, the State party reiterates that following the complainant’s claim of 10 December 2008, a forensic medical examination was performed on him. Taking into account the results of the examination, an internal investigation was carried out, but the complainant’s allegations were found to be groundless (see para. 6.3 above). 6.6 The State party reiterates that the complainant has failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies concerning his allegations of torture, as he has not availed himself of the remedy under articles 460 and 576 of the criminal procedure code, i.e., he has not submitted a complaint to the Supreme Court within the supervisory review proceedings. Under article 460 of the code, only parties to the proceedings may challenge a judgment which has 9