CAT/C/71/D/759/2016 5.14 For all these reasons, the complainant requests that the communication be declared admissible and that it be examined on the merits, as it meets the requirements of article 22 (5) (a) and (b) of the Convention in a reasonable and adequate manner.18 Committee’s decision on the State party’s request for separate consideration of the admissibility of the communication 6. In May 2017, the Committee informed the parties of its decision, taken through its Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures, to jointly examine the admissibility and the merits of the communication. State party’s additional observations on admissibility and the merits 7.1 On 24 May 2017, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits, and reiterated its arguments on inadmissibility, considering that the complainant had failed to exhaust available domestic remedies. The State party adds that the Committee, as a subsidiary body, should declare the communication inadmissible, as the State is in the process of resolving the matter at the domestic level. 7.2 The State party notes that the Committee has been clear in its jurisprudence in considering whether the State party acted in conformity with the standards of the Convention before deciding on admissibility. 19 Accordingly, the Committee should find the communication inadmissible, because it has been demonstrated that proceedings are under way at the domestic level, and that all effective domestic remedies have not therefore been exhausted. 7.3 As to the merits of the case, the State party affirms that the investigations have been carried out in accordance with the standards and obligations established under the Convention. In the present case, in response to the events reported by the complainant the State party used all means at its disposal to initiate an investigation without delay, in accordance with the obligation of due diligence and the standards set out in the Convention. 20 It also wishes to emphasize that as a result of these proceedings four alleged perpetrators are under investigation and in this connection the State party wishes to highlight that the duty to investigate is an obligation of means and not of results. 21 7.4 The State party reiterates that standards have been respected in the present case, since various proceedings have been carried out under different lines of investigation, all of them have been conducted without the complainant needing to be present, and the time elapsed since the start of the criminal proceedings is in line with the normal time frame established by law for criminal proceedings of this nature. Furthermore, the investigations have produced results in that the assumed perpetrators, who are officers of the police force who were at the scene on the day the events occurred, have already been identified. In addition, the investigation began immediately that the State became aware of the facts, since one of the assumed perpetrators was arrested and an arrest warrant was issued against the remaining three, a situation that demonstrates that the State has acted in accordance with its obligations and the Convention, and that, moreover, the proceedings are ongoing. 7.5 In accordance with the foregoing, the Committee should find that the State party has fulfilled its obligation to investigate the events from the moment it became aware of them, and is currently dealing with the matter at the domestic level. Complainant’s additional comments on the State party’s observations 8.1 On 8 October 2016, the complainant submitted comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits of the communication. The complainant notes that the State party repeats the arguments already set out in its submission of 24 January 2017, 18 19 20 21 GE.21-13347 Evloev v. Kazakhstan (CAT/C/51/D/441/2010), para. 8.6. Gahungu v. Burundi (CAT/C/55/D/522/2012). Ibid. The State party refers, inter alia, to the judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Tristán Donoso v. Panama, 27 January 2009 (preliminary exception, merits, reparations and costs), Series C, No. 193. para. 146. 11