CAT/C/51/D/441/2010 The State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 By a note verbale of 10 March 2011, the State party challenged the admissibility of the complainant’s communication for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 4.2 The State party explains that on 23 October 2008, the complainant was accused, in absentia, for murder of four persons in Astana on 22 October 2008. On the same day, court No. 2 of the Almatinsk Distict of Astana authorized the complainant’s arrest. As it transpired that the complainant had left Kazakhstan in the meantime, an international arrest warrant was issued against him. As a result, he was arrested in the Republic of Ingushetia (Russian Federation) and extradited to Kazakhstan on 9 December 2008. 4.3 On 16 January 2009, the complainant was charged under articles 96 (2), 179 (3) and 185 (2) of the criminal code of Kazakhstan for premeditated murder of two or more individuals in a helpless state, committed with selfish aims, in a group, with particular violence, with the aim of concealing another crime; robbery with the aim of acquiring others’ property in an important amount; and unlawful appropriation of a means of transportation. On 27 February 2009, his case was brought to court. On 16 June 2009, a jury of the Astana City Court found the complainant guilty under articles 96 (2), 179 (3) and 185 (2) of the criminal code. The complainant was sentenced to life imprisonment. At the same trial, the complainant’s co-accused, D.T., was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment with confiscation of property. The State party explains that the complainant’s guilt was established on the basis of a multitude of corroborating pieces of evidence collected during the preliminary investigation, assessed in court and recognized as lawfully obtained. 4.4 In June 2009, the complainant appealed against his conviction to the Supreme Court, claiming that he was convicted unlawfully. In November 2009, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the court of first instance and rejected the complainant’s appeal. The State party maintains that the complainant failed to file an application for supervisory review to the Supreme Court and therefore has not exhausted all domestic remedies. 4.5 As to the complainant’s allegations of torture, the State party submits that in 2009 the complainant’s parents, through the complainant’s current counsel, complained of the unlawful conviction of their son and the use of unlawful methods of investigation to the Astana District Prosecutor’s Office and to the Astana City Prosecutor’s Office. The complainant complained to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Kazakhstan, claiming that during the preliminary investigation, he was subjected to physical and psychological pressure by officers of the Department of Internal Affairs of Astana. The Internal Security Division of the Department of Internal Affairs of Astana carried out an investigation into these allegations, but decided not to initiate criminal proceedings due to lack of corpus delicti in the officers’ acts. This decision was verified by the supervising prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office of Astana and was confirmed. Neither the complainant nor his family or legal counsel appealed against the prosecutor’s refusal to annul the decision not to initiate criminal proceedings, although an appeal against such decision was possible with a higher prosecutor and in court. Therefore, the complainant has failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies. 4.6 The State party notes that under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, the Committee may not consider a complaint unless it ascertains that all domestic remedies have been exhausted. Article 460 of the criminal procedure code (right of appeal against a court sentence, ruling and resolution which have entered into force) provides that an application for review of a court decision which has entered into force may be filed by the parties in the proceedings who have the right to lodge an appeal and a cassation appeal and thus the complainant could and still can do so. 4.7 The State party rejects the complainant’s contention that, for him, initiation of supervisory review proceedings is futile, since such an application submitted by his co5