CCPR/C/116/D/1941/2010 for purposes of admissibility. It declares them admissible and proceeds with their examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes the author’s claims that he was detained and, on the way to the police station, was severely beaten by officers from the Novogiresvo Regional Police Department; he was held in the basement of the police department until 8 a.m. the next morning and throughout the night was subjected to beatings, while handcuffed, resulting in a broken jaw and several fractured ribs; and officers stepped on his throat to cut off the air flow, resulting in hematomas. The Committee also notes the State party’s submission that the investigation following the author’s complaint established that unknown persons had inflicted the injuries on the author and that none of the police officers were involved. The Committee, observes however, that according to the testimony of the hospital officials during the trial, an ambulance was called for the author from the police station on 13 September 2006, when he was already in custody, and the ambulance personnel diagnosed the fractured ribs and jaw and the hematomas. The Committee also notes that the initial investigation was closed without having identified the perpetrators of the injuries inflicted on the author and that, despite the State party’s submission that the investigation had been reopened on 2 March 2011, no information is available regarding the results of the renewed investigation. 8.3 The Committee further observes that the investigations appear to have been ineffective, while submissions made by the State party and statements made during the trial by representatives of the hospital and the emergency health service and the author contain contradictory information as to the events surrounding his arrest and how he came to sustain serious injuries. The Committee further observes that according to the decision of the Preobrazhensky Regional Court, the medical records of the author were not provided by the Prosecutor’s Office despite the court’s having requested them. 8.4 The Committee recalls that once a complaint about ill-treatment contrary to article 7 has been filed, a State party must investigate it promptly and impartially. 6 Taking into consideration the contradictory information and the absence of an official conclusion of the investigation into the author’s torture allegations that started on 26 September of 2006, the Committee considers that in the circumstances of the present case, the State party has failed to demonstrate that its authorities adequately and efficiently addressed the torture allegations advanced by the author expeditiously and adequately, in the context of both domestic criminal proceedings and the present communication. Accordingly, due weight must be given to the author’s allegations. The Committee therefore concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of the rights of the author under article 7 of the Covenant. 7 8.5 The Committee also notes the author’s claims under article 14 (1) and 3 (d) that he was removed from parts of the first instance court hearings and could not deliver testimony in his defence and that the verdict had not been announced publicly. The Committee recalls that article 14 (3) (d) requires that accused persons be present during their trial, even though proceedings in the absence of the accused may in some circumstances be permissible in the 6 7 See general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 14 and, for example, communication No. 1304/2004, Khoroshenko v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 29 March 2011, para. 9.5. See, for example, communication No. 889/1999, Zheikov v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 17 March 2006, para. 7.2 and Khoroshenko v. Russian Federation, para. 9.5. 7