CCPR/C/130/D/2405/2014 General’s Office had quashed the refusal by the Osh city prosecutor’s office to investigate the author’s allegations, more than 50 days after his arrest. The author argues that by then the authorities were unable to interview witnesses and collect important forensic evidence, which could have been vital in the prosecution of the police officers. For instance, the author’s father personally witnessed the author’s detention and filed one of the initial complaints against the police. However, he died shortly after the author’s arrest and thus could not testify in court. Furthermore, the author notes that, since the Osh city prosecutor’s office was investigating two cases in parallel, one against the author and another against the police officers, they were facing a conflict of interests and were not interested in an effective investigation of the charges against the police officers. 3.2 The author also claims a violation of article 9 (1), (3) and (4) due to his arbitrary arrest and detention, including his incommunicado detention during the first 27 hours, the failure to promptly bring him before a judge and the failure of the courts to examine the legality of his arrest and alternatives to pretrial detention. The author submits that, even though he was arrested on 5 July 2011, the official record of his arrest was dated 6 July, at 11.35 p.m. During the initial 27 hours, he was subjected to beatings by the police, was not allowed to contact his family to inform them of his whereabouts and was interrogated without a lawyer being present. State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 In a note verbale dated 27 December 2014, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the communication. The State party submits that, on 7 July 2011, the author’s lawyer submitted a complaint to the Osh city prosecutor’s office alleging the author’s unlawful detention and torture by the police. An inquiry conducted by the prosecutor’s office determined that the author had been taken to the police station on suspicion of committing various crimes against the family of Z on 12 June 2010 with a group of armed men of Uzbek ethnicity. On 21 July 2011, the prosecutor’s office refused to open a criminal case against the police for lack of corpus delicti. On 22 August 2011, the refusal was quashed by the Prosecutor General’s Office and a criminal case was opened into allegations of torture, abuse of power and unlawful entry into the author’s house. 4.2 According to the State party, the author and his co-defendant were arrested not on 5 July but rather on 6 July 2011. They did not report being tortured or ill-treated in their affidavits during the initial inquiry by the Osh city prosecutor’s office, although later they changed their testimonies. The State party confirms that a forensic medical examination conducted on 9 July 2011 revealed injuries to the author’s forearm; however, the doctor at the Osh city temporary detention facilities testified that he had not observed any injuries to the author when he had been brought into the facilities on 7 July 2011. The officers who were on duty that day at the detention facilities and the author’s cellmates also testified that they had not heard the author complain about being beaten by the police. At the same time, the four police officers who had detained the author denied having exerted any physical or psychological pressure on him. 4.3 The State party notes that, on 1 December 2011, the four police officers of the Suleyman-Too police department who had arrested the author were charged with abuse of power and unlawfully entering the author’s house and were temporarily relieved of their duties. On 9 December 2011, the Osh city prosecutor’s office decided not to charge the police officers with torture for lack of evidence. On 20 April 2012, all four police officers were acquitted by the Osh city court. On 26 April 2012, the Osh city prosecutor’s office appealed the verdict, which was denied on 26 June 2012 by the Osh provincial court. On 9 July 2012, the Supreme Court denied the supervisory appeal submitted by the Osh city prosecutor’s office. 4.4 The State party submits that, since the author’s case has been examined by the Supreme Court, reconsideration of the case is possible by a court only if there are new circumstances or by a prosecutor only if there is newly discovered evidence in the case. 4.5 According to the information provided by the State party, on 12 June 2010, the author, his co-defendant and several other persons of Uzbek ethnicity whom the police were not able to identify took hostage the family of Z, consisting of seven persons, including children. The 4