CAT/C/62/D/712/2015 4.11 Nine witnesses6 have testified that there was no pressure put on the complainant and that the passenger side door of the car, where the complainant was seated, was open. After an inspection of the crime scene, the complainant was driven in one of the agents’ cars to the offices of the investigation department, where she expressed her willingness to cooperate with the investigation. 4.12 Testimony, provided by Ch. and other witnesses, proves that the law enforcement agents observed Ch.’s car with the complainant in it. On searching the vehicle, the agents discovered a mobile telephone, which the complainant confirmed was hers, and 30,000 Rub. These facts refute the complainant’s claim that her mobile telephone was forcibly taken from her by the law enforcement agents. 4.13 The seizure protocol, dated 4 July 2013, and conducted on the basis of investigator S.’s order, shows that the complainant was found to be carrying 220,000 Rub. 7 After analysing the protocol, in conjunction with other evidence in the case, the courts found that the money had not been planted in the complainant’s purse by the Federal Security Service agents, but rather was the remainder of 250,000 Rub given to the complainant by B.I.A. to bribe Ch. This conclusion was based on Ch.’s testimony, information provided by the complainant in the oral crime report protocol8 and the testimonies of three witnesses. The seizure of the money was conducted in accordance with article 183 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure and in the presence of witnesses and the complainant’s counsel, M.V.V., making it impossible for the law enforcement agents to have carried out any unlawful actions or put pressure on the complainant. 4.14 As can be seen from the criminal case materials, the head of the regional office of the Federal Security Service was ordered to verify information received by the regional investigation department concerning the complainant’s plan to bribe Ch. to give misleading testimony in a criminal case. In order to carry out that task, a number of Federal Security Service agents placed the complainant and B.I.A. under surveillance on 3 July and 4 July 2012 respectively. Both surveillance operations were carried out with the approval of the head of the regional office of the Federal Security Service and based on a judicial warrant dated 3 July 2012 granting the regional office of the Federal Security Service permission to place the complainant under surveillance and, among other things, listen in on her telephone calls and monitor her mail. The judicial order was signed prior to the investigative actions of 3 July 2012, based on the relevant request made in compliance with the law. There is no information proving that the judicial order was falsified. 4.15 The results of the investigative actions of 3 and 4 July 2012, reflected in Sh.I.I.’s report, are consistent with the data contained on two disks, obtained with the use of special technical devices.9 The disks were examined during the investigation and the video and audio recordings were studied and added to the criminal case file as evidence. 4.16 The verdict fully outlines the findings concerning the preservation of the data on the disks in their original form, free of any tampering. The court studied the allegations of possible editing of the audio and video files and found them to be unsubstantiated. No information was provided that would cast any doubt to authenticity and integrity of the audio and video files. 4.17 The allegations by the complainant that she was unlawfully placed in a psychiatric institution on 12 July 2012 were also found to be unsubstantiated. From the testimony of the complainant’s mother, it is evident that the complainant started feeling ill on 5 July 2012, had insomnia and became anxious. On 12 July 2012, the complainant’s mother contacted the psychiatric clinic because she thought that her daughter needed psychiatric care. The complainant received treatment at the psychiatric clinic until 6 August 2012. This testimony is in line with the forensic-psychiatric expert report, which states that the 6 7 8 9 4 All of them were law enforcement agents. Approximately €5,500. The trial court’s decision shows that this money was voluntarily submitted by the complainant to the investigator. The State party claims that, after going to the regional investigation department, the complainant voluntarily reported the offence she had committed. Video and audio recordings of the surveillance operation were made.