CCPR/C/126/D/2356/2014 5.3 The State party submits that it found no proof of torture or mistreatment, without providing any details of the inquiry that they carried out. The authors refer to the jurisprudence of the Committee, according to which the burden of proof regarding torture cannot lay only on the author, especially in the light of the fact that the State party has better access to the relevant information. The State party is obliged to carry out an effective investigation once a claim of torture has been made. The State party claims that Mr. Ismanov had unhindered access to his lawyer without any limitations but provides no details of when such meetings were held. 5.4 On approximately 20 November 2013, Mr. Ismanov was asked to request a pardon. However, in that request, he was asked to confess his guilt. Mr. Ismanov informed the prison authorities that he would instead write about all the violations that had occurred since his arrest. The prison authorities tried to convince him, but Mr. Ismanov refused, claiming that he was innocent. As a result, the prison authorities threatened to send him to a so-called covered prison, which was famous for its harsh conditions of imprisonment. On 18 February 2014, Mr. Ismanov was placed in a confinement cell as punishment for making a telephone call. There, he started choking since there was not enough air, and the prison administration had to call for medical assistance. On 10 March 2014, Mr. Ismanov was transferred to a cold barrack, in which there was no heating. On 25 March 2014, his wife was informed that he would not be granted any family visits. On 6 May 2014, Mr. Ismanov informed his wife that the prison authorities kept pressuring him and threatening to transfer him to another prison with harsher conditions.9 5.5 The authors claim that the State party should be found guilty of all the violations stated in the initial complaint of Mr. Ismanov. It should be requested to carry out a prompt and effective investigation into the authors’ claims, to identify the perpetrators and to hold them accountable for the violations that occurred. The criminal case against Mr. Ismanov should be reconsidered and he must be provided with adequate compensation. The State party should also be requested to create an “independent mechanism” to investigate complaints of torture. 10 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee takes note of the claim that the authors have exhausted all available effective domestic remedies. In the absence of any objection by the State party in this connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 6.4 The Committee considers that the authors have sufficiently substantiated their claims under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (3), 9 (1)–(4), 10 (1) and 14 (1) and (3) (b) and (g), for the purposes of admissibility. It therefore declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. 9 10 6 The authors informed the Committee that Mr. Ismanov was released in May 2015, upon completion of his sentence. Mr. Ismanov also asked the Committee, among other things, to request the State party to detain persons before trial only as an exceptional measure, and cease considering the gravity of the charges as one of the criteria for granting or refusing bail. The courts must ascertain whether there is sufficient evidence to place a person in detention. Such evidence should be regularly examined by the courts when deciding on whether to grant an extension to pretrial detention.