CCPR/C/130/D/2405/2014 8.2 A forensic examination of the video files discovered on Mr. Farouk’s laptop concluded that they included calls for jihad and interreligious discord. On 26 March 2015, a criminal case was opened by the National Security Committee on grounds of “public calls for violent overthrow of the constitutional order” and for “inciting interreligious hatred”. 8.3 On 27 March 2015, pursuant to a court ruling, the offices and places of residence of the author’s lawyer and his colleague were searched, as a result of which a number of disks, laptops, memory cards and documents were seized. The State party notes that the officers conducting the search did not seize documents relating to the lawyers’ criminal cases. On 30 April 2015, the Osh provincial court found the Osh city court’s decision sanctioning the search of the lawyers’ offices and houses unfounded. At the lawyers’ request, electronic equipment and documents seized during the search of 27 March 2015 were partially returned to the lawyers. On 18 May 2015, the lawyers complained to the Osh city court, asking for all the equipment and documents seized during the search to be returned. On 19 May 2015, the Osh provincial prosecutor’s office appealed the ruling of the Osh provincial court of 30 April 2015 to the Supreme Court; the appeal is pending. The State party proposes to provide further information on this matter after the Supreme Court renders its decision. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 9.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 9.2 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. 9.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim that he has exhausted all available legal domestic remedies. In the absence of any objection by the State party in that connection, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the communication. 9.4 In the Committee’s view, the author has not sufficiently substantiated his claim that the seizure by the State party’s authorities of his lawyer’s equipment constituted a violation of the Covenant, and notably the right to bring a complaint to the Committee, as guaranteed by article 2 of the Optional Protocol. At the same time, the author has sufficiently substantiated his claims under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a), and article 9 (1), (3) and (4) of the Covenant, for the purposes of admissibility. It therefore declares those latter claims admissible 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, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 10.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that, at 9 p.m. on 5 July 2011, several police officers broke into his house without showing a warrant or identifying themselves, handcuffed him and drove him to the Suleyman-Too police station. While in the car, the officers put a plastic bag over the author’s head and beat him. Handcuffed and with a bag on his head, he was taken to the police station, where two officers continued beating him with a baton on his stomach, kidneys and feet, asking him to confess to a crime that had been committed one year earlier. The beatings continued for two hours until the author signed a confession. The Committee observes that the author has submitted a detailed account of the torture to which he claims he was subjected and that the State party has acknowledged the fact that he was tortured. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that, even though the forensic medical examination carried out on 9 July 2011 revealed injuries to the author’s forearm, the doctor at the Osh city temporary detention facilities testified that he had not noticed any injuries to the author on 7 July 2011 when the author had been examined at the facilities. Officers on duty at the temporary detention facilities that day and the author’s cellmates also testified that they did not hear the author complain about beatings by the police. 7