CCPR/C/120/D/2162/2012 private counsel, M.M., and his interrogation as a suspect was conducted in Russian and in the presence of his counsel. Further, on 27 February, the author’s brother was informed about the charges against him in Russian. The interrogation as an accused was also conducted in the presence of his counsel and in Russian. During the interrogation, he partially admitted guilt, explaining that, together with the co-accused B.A., he had acquired and transported the drug with the aim of further sale. Therefore, the State party rejects the claims that the author’s brother’s right not to testify against himself was violated. 6.5 The State party submits that in accordance with the requirements of article 231 of the Criminal Procedure Code, an interpreter was appointed to the case and the author’s brother had access to the materials on the file together with his counsel and the interpreter. The State party admits that the verdict is in the Kyrgyz language and that on 10 August 2011, the author’s brother’s counsel made a request to the President of the Osh City Court for a copy in Russian. However, the translation fee was not paid. On 24 August, in a letter to the counsel, the Osh City Court explained that according to article 146 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the interested party had to pay for the translation. 6.6 The State party maintains that the author’s brother did not complain about the alleged torture in police custody to the Osh city prosecutor’s office. His counsel, in his letter of 24 October 2012 to the Prosecutor General of Kyrgyzstan, did not mention that his client had been tortured by the police. Lastly, as to the claim that the chemical expertise did not specify the methods used to identify the substance as heroin, the State party submits that the expertise was conducted according to the methodological guide for experts of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Kyrgyzstan. From the author 7.1 In his additional comments, submitted on 30 September 2013, the author restated that his brother was subjected to torture, of which the latter complained before the trial court. On 4 April 2013, the Osh city prosecutor’s office interrogated his brother with regard to the communication to the Committee. In this regard, on 5 April, the author lodged a complaint with the Prosecutor General of Kyrgyzstan claiming that the acts of the Osh city prosecutor’s office amounted to pressure on the victim in the absence of counsel and requested the opening of a criminal case against the police officers involved. On 10 May, the Prosecutor General upheld the Osh city prosecution decision/ruling not to open a criminal case. On 14 June, the author responded to the Prosecutor General, claiming, among other things, that he had not received the Osh city prosecution ruling not to open a criminal case. According to the author, it was impossible to challenge the decision which, according to the law, had to be done within seven days after the party had been informed, as the author had had no information about the beginning of the preliminary investigation, about the organ conducting it or the one taking the decision, or the motives and the reasoning. 7.2 The author again disagrees with the court’s assessment of the evidence, with the conclusions of the chemical expertise and with the verdict. He submits that his brother’s counsel was not allowed to cross-examine an important witness and that his testimony was kept secret. He claims that his brother did not have a fair trial as the “sting” method used by the police is not under independent and impartial judicial control. He reiterates that the prosecutor did not react to his brother’s torture allegations during the court hearing. The Osh prosecutor’s office visited his brother in prison only on 4 April 2013, nearly two years after the arrest, and in connection with the communication before the Committee. He further maintains that the prosecution is not an independent organ as it functions under a conflict of interest: on one hand, supervising the investigation and in charge of the prosecution and, on the other hand, the protection against torture by the pretrial investigation organs; therefore, the victims of torture in police custody have no effective remedy of protection. 7.3 The author reiterates that his brother was deprived of the possibility to appeal his verdict as he has not received it in a language that he understands. 12 The State party 12 The author refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, paras. 32 and 49. 7