CAT/C/51/D/441/2010 review proceedings, the complainant recalls that the rejection by the Supreme Court of the supervisory application of his co-accused, D.T., who was also ill-treated, demonstrates the ineffectiveness of such proceedings. In addition, the clear unwillingness of the authorities to investigate serious allegations of ill-treatment in the present case demonstrates that the possibility of submitting a complaint within the supervisory review proceedings would have been an ineffective domestic remedy. 7.7 In light of this, the complainant requests the Committee to conclude that his rights under article 1, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 1, as well as under articles 12, 13 and 14 of the Convention have been violated. He requests the Committee to ask the State party to carry out an effective investigation into his allegations of torture and to have those responsible prosecuted. He further requests that his forced confessions are expunged from the list of evidence retained in his criminal case. Finally, he requests the State party to compensate and rehabilitate him. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, the Committee must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 8.2 The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5(a), of the Convention that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 With respect to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee notes that the State party challenges the admissibility on the grounds that the complainant has not appealed to a higher prosecutor the decision of 8 June of 2009, by which an investigator of the Internal Security Division of the Department of Internal Affairs of Astana refused to open a criminal case on the complainant’s allegations of torture. Further, the State party claims that he failed to complain to the Supreme Court within the supervisory review proceedings, and that, in case of disagreement with the court’s ruling that has entered into force, he could have complained to the General Prosecutor, also under the supervisory review proceedings. 8.4 With regard to the State party’s argument that the complainant has not appealed the decision of 8 June 2009 of the Internal Security Division of the Department of Internal Affairs of Astana, the Committee notes that the complainant’s allegations of ill-treatment have been drawn to the attention of the competent national authorities on numerous occasions. In particular, it remains uncontested that the complainant complained to a prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office of Astana during his interrogation on 10 December 2008, i.e., one day after the alleged acts of torture occurred, and also to a prosecutor during the interrogation on 16 December 2008. On 21 January 2009, the complainant’s father submitted a written complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Almatinsky District of Astana against the treatment of his son. On 18 May 2009, the complainant’s mother submitted another complaint to the Department of Internal Security of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. On 22 May 2009, the complainant’s lawyer requested the Prosecutor’s Office of Astana to receive a copy of the formal refusal to open an investigation into allegations of torture. The complainant also complained in court, during the trial, that he had been subjected to torture (i.e. during the hearing before the Astana City Court on 26 May 2009 and in his appeal of 29 June 2009 to the Supreme Court, at which a representative of the General Prosecutor’s Office was present). Therefore, the competent authorities have been notified of the complainant’s allegations of torture. 13