CCPR/C/130/D/2405/2014 attackers beat and robbed the hostages and burned their house. They tied the hostages’ hands, loaded them on a truck and held them captive, then exchanged them for persons of Uzbek ethnicity the following day. 4.6 The State party submits that the author’s guilt was fully proven by the testimonies of the victims, who were able to identify the author and his co-defendant. 4.7 The State party notes that it is difficult to prove torture. For instance, witnesses who happen to be the victims’ cellmates often refuse to testify against the police. However, the Prosecutor General’s Office considers torture unacceptable and takes all measures within its legal powers to eliminate it. It conducts planned and unplanned inspections of places of detention; there are guidelines that require all torture victims to undergo psychological examinations; and prosecutors are required to petition courts for forensic medical examinations of victims whenever there are allegations of torture. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 5.1 On 16 March 2015, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. He rejects the arguments put forward by the State party and notes that they do not reflect the actual circumstances of the case. 5.2 The author notes that, in its submission, the State party does not deny that he was detained by the officers of the Suleyman-Too police department at 9 p.m. on 5 July 2011. He also notes that the State party does not address his incommunicado detention for 27 hours after apprehension, during which he was tortured and prevented from contacting his relatives, nor the fact that he was brought before a judge 67 hours after his arrest. According to the author, he was taken to court only after his lawyer submitted a complaint to the Osh city prosecutor’s office on 8 July 2011, demanding the author’s immediate release. 5.3 The author rejects the State party’s claim that he did not report being tortured or illtreated in his affidavit during the initial inquiry by the prosecutor’s office. He reiterates his claim that he was tortured on 5 and 6 July 2011 and submits that, on 7 July 2011, when he was finally allowed to see his lawyer in the presence of the investigator, he displayed his injuries from the beatings and signed a complaint to the Osh city prosecutor detailing the torture. Furthermore, he notes that, after his meeting with his lawyer, he was again beaten by two police officers and his case investigator and warned not to cause any problems. On the same day, he informed his lawyer about those threats, who in turn submitted a motion to the Osh city prosecutor’s office requesting the author’s immediate transfer from the Osh city temporary detention facilities to the Osh pretrial detention facilities, to ensure his safety. According to the author, the law requires that such motions be granted immediately. He was, however, transferred to the Osh pretrial detention facilities only after 10 days. During those 10 days, he was subjected to further beatings and threats by the police designed to make him withdraw his complaint. 5.4 The author claims that the national authorities purposefully avoided conducting an effective investigation of his claims of torture. In support of this claim, he notes that it took four months for the State party to investigate his allegations of torture and charge the police officers, while the Code of Criminal Procedure of Kyrgyzstan requires such investigations to be completed within two months and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment calls for prompt investigation of all claims of torture. Furthermore, he notes that the police officers involved were never charged with the actual crime of torture, as prescribed under article 305-1 of the Criminal Code of Kyrgyzstan. Despite the repeated requests by the author’s lawyer to add the charge of torture, the prosecutor’s office and domestic courts refused to do so. The author also notes that, in accordance with the trial court’s ruling, he cooperated with the police in locating his codefendant, who in turn was named as the leader of the group that had committed the robbery and kidnapping. Despite this and several other mitigating circumstances, the author received a longer prison sentence than his co-defendant.3 The author claims that this was done in retaliation for his refusal to drop his complaint of torture against the police. 3 The author’s co-defendant was sentenced to 15 years in prison. 5