CAT/C/51/D/441/2010 accused, D.T., also containing allegations of torture, was rejected by the Supreme Court. The State party finds this argument unfounded, as the refusal by the court to request a supervisory review as a result to D.T.’s application in no way means that the complainant’s appeal would also be rejected, if lodged. The complainant can request examination of his case under the supervisory review of his case by the Supreme Court, as provided for under article 576 of the criminal procedure code. In case of a negative response, he could appeal to the General Prosecutor’s Office with an application for a supervisory review of court decisions already in force, in accordance with article 460 of the criminal procedure code. 4.8 In conclusion, the State party emphasises the complainant’s failure to: (a) submit an application for supervisory review with the Supreme Court; (b) appeal to the General Prosecutor’s Office or in court against the refusal of the city prosecutor of Astana to initiate criminal proceedings into his torture claims; (c) complain to the General Prosecutor’s Office with a request for a protest motion regarding the re-examination of the court rulings that have already entered into force under the supervisory review proceedings and therefore he has not exhausted all available domestic remedies. The complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 22 April 2011, the complainant provided his comments on the State party’s submission. He reiterates the facts of the case and recalls that on 8 December 2008, he was extradited from the Chechen Republic, and he arrived in Astana early on 9 December 2008. He was humiliated prior to and during his extradition by Kazakh officials. In the temporary detention centre of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Astana, he was tortured during his interrogation by police officers and forced to produce written confessions to a multiple murder. As a result of the torture he suffered, the complainant received injuries to his head, had broken ribs and a fractured left foot. 5.2 The complainant refutes the State party’s assertion that a complaint regarding his illtreatment was submitted by his parents only in 2009 and recalls that he first complained about torture to a prosecutor on 10 December 2008, the day following his ill-treatment, and that he showed the marks of torture on his body to the prosecutor during an interrogation which was videotaped.4 However, instead of verifying the complainant’s claims, the prosecutor extended his detention in the temporary detention centre for 70 days, thus giving police officers 24-hour access to the complainant. 5.3 On 16 December 2008, in the presence of his lawyer, the complainant complained about the torture he had suffered during an interrogation by the prosecutor supervising his criminal case. In January 2009, in light of the passivity of the authorities, the complainant’s parents laid a complaint before the Astana city prosecutor, however it was forwarded to the Internal Security Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. According to the complainant, this demonstrates the failure of the authorities to conduct a proper investigation into his complaint of torture. 5.4 According to the complainant, an investigation into his allegations of torture was carried out, at the request of his parents, only six months after his own complaint of 10 December 2008. His numerous complaints regarding the torture endured have not been assessed by the court of first instance during his trial which started in March 2009, as the judge prohibited the complainant from speaking about torture in the presence of the jury. At the same time, however, the court based its decision on evidence obtained under duress, in particular on the complainant’s written forced confessions. On 18 May 2009, losing any 4 6 The complainant contends that he told the prosecutor that he was forced and tortured, that he has injuries to the thorax and the head, that he was prevented from sleeping and was subjected to psychological pressure.