CCPR/C/130/D/2400/2014 2.9 On 3 March 2010, the Sokuluk district prosecutor’s office again refused to open a criminal investigation into the author’s allegations of torture. According to the decision, the author’s allegations were not supported by the results of the forensic medical examination. The decision also indicated that the police officers had denied beating the author and had testified that they had taken him to the police station for a “prophylactic conversation”,3 after which he had been released. On 14 April 2010, the author appealed the refusal to the Sokuluk district prosecutor. On 19 April 2010, the Sokuluk district deputy prosecutor rejected the author’s appeal. 2.10 On 21 May 2010, the author appealed the decision to the Sokuluk district court. He argued that his arrest was clearly arbitrary and, since he had submitted a complaint detailing the psychological and physical pressure to which he had been subjected, as well as the names of the police officers involved, the prosecutor’s office was required by law to open a criminal investigation and to order an independent forensic medical examination, which would provide the author with an opportunity to question medical experts on the results of their findings. 2.11 On 25 May 2010, the Sokuluk district court quashed the refusal by the prosecutor’s office and ruled that an investigation could not be refused solely on the basis of a victim’s lack of physical injuries. On 28 July 2010, the Chuy provincial court upheld the decision of the Sokuluk district court and ordered an additional inquiry. 2.12 On 28 August 2010, the Sokuluk district assistant prosecutor again refused to open a criminal investigation into the author’s allegations based on the same conclusion as the previous inquiry. On 15 October 2010, the author appealed the refusal to the Sokuluk district court, arguing that the prosecutor’s office had not conducted an additional inquiry as directed by the courts. 2.13 On 28 October 2010, the Sokuluk district court quashed the refusal by the prosecutor’s office and ordered an additional inquiry. 2.14 On 24 December 2010, the Sokuluk district assistant prosecutor refused, for the fifth time, to open a criminal investigation based on the same grounds.4 2.15 After the author submitted a complaint to the Prosecutor General of Kyrgyzstan, requesting his personal oversight of the author’s complaints, on 11 January 2011, the Chuy provincial prosecutor’s office quashed the refusal of the Sokuluk district assistant prosecutor and ordered him to conduct an additional inquiry. On 24 January 2011, the Sokuluk district assistant prosecutor again refused to open a criminal investigation. 2.16 On 31 March 2011, the chief prosecutor of the Prosecutor General’s Office quashed the refusal of the Sokuluk district assistant prosecutor, noting that the latter had not conducted an additional inquiry and had instead copied and attached to the case file his previous refusal dated 24 December 2010. According to the chief prosecutor, while the police officers against whom the complaint was submitted had testified that they had moved the author from the Novopavlovka police station to the Sokuluk district police department at 6.45 p.m., another police officer, E., had testified that, at 9 p.m., the author had still been at the Novopavlovka police station. The chief prosecutor also noted that neither D., the author’s acquaintance who was present at the Novopavlovka police station when the author was taken there, nor other witnesses who had been present at the Novopavlovka police station and the Sokuluk district police department on 4 December 2009 and who might have seen the author had been questioned by the prosecutor’s office. 2.17 On 8 April 2011, after conducting an additional inquiry, 5 the Chuy provincial prosecutor’s office refused to open a criminal investigation for lack of corpus delicti. 2.18 3 4 5 The author submits that he has exhausted all available domestic remedies. Aimed at preventing future crimes. From the documents submitted, it appears that the prosecutor’s office additionally questioned only an on-duty officer at the Novopavlovka police station, who testified that the author had been taken away from the police station at 6.45 p.m. The author did not provide a copy of the refusal. 3