CCPR/C/122/D/2228/2012 before a prosecutor, against the decisions to suspend the investigation. The Committee notes that the State party has not indicated to which prosecutor’s office the author should have lodged such an appeal. It also notes the author’s unrefuted submission that the denial of her counsel’s request for a copy of that decision prevented her from submitting an appeal. It further notes her argument that an appeal to a hierarchically superior prosecutor does not provide for a truly fair, adversarial and independent review and therefore does not constitute an effective remedy. The author has also stressed that domestic law does not provide for judicial review of the investigator’s decision to suspend the investigation. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which a petition for supervisory review to a prosecutor’s office does not constitute an effective domestic remedy which must be exhausted for the purposes of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 7 It also notes that the State party has not provided any information on available judicial remedies which would have been or remained at the author’s disposal.8 In the circumstances, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from considering the communication. 9.4 The Committee notes the author’s claims under article 7 of the Covenant that the illtreatment that she suffered at the hands of the police amounts to torture and that no effective investigation was conducted by the domestic authorities in that connection. The Committee considers that this part of the communication also raises issues under article 2 (3) of the Covenant. 9.5 The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated her claims under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant, for the purposes of admissibility, and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 10.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 10.2 The Committee notes the author’s claims under article 7 of the Covenant that on 19 December 2010, after she had observed a peaceful assembly in the centre of Minsk, she was beaten by a police officer, resulting in a compound leg fracture, seven days’ hospitalization and prolonged partial incapacity. 9 The author also submitted that timely medical assistance had not been provided to her. The Committee notes that the author has submitted a detailed account of the ill-treatment to which she was subjected, supporting medical evidence, and accounts of eyewitnesses. The Committee notes that the author’s allegations remained unrefuted by the State party. In the absence of any information from the State party, the Committee considers that the facts as presented amount to a violation of the author’s rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 10.3 The Committee also notes the author’s claim that the investigation into her illtreatment was ineffective, due to its lack of promptness and of impartiality. In particular, criminal proceedings were only opened on 18 April 2011, that is, four months after she reported the incident to the prosecutor’s office, but were suspended on 2 December 2011 and 1 February 2012, due to the failure of the authorities to identify the perpetrator. 10.4 In this connection, the Committee notes the author’s argument that the investigation did not truly seek to identify the perpetrator, and that her requests that the investigators question eyewitnesses and set up an identity parade were denied, even though she had stated that she would be able to identify the officer responsible. The Committee also notes the author’s claim that the investigation lacked impartiality, as it was initially entrusted to the Minsk City police, with which the perpetrator was affiliated. The Committee observes that these allegations have not been refuted by the State party. The Committee recalls that, once a complaint about ill-treatment contrary to article 7 has been filed, a State party must investigate the complaint promptly and impartially. 10 In the present case, more than seven 7 8 9 10 See, for example, Poliakov v. Belarus (CCPR/C/111/D/2030/2011), para. 7.3. See, for example, Yklymova v. Turkmenistan (CCPR/C/96/D/1460/2006), para. 6.2. See para. 2.2 above. See the Committee’s general comment No. 20, para. 14. 5