Advance unedited version CCPR/C/118/D/2187/2012 4.2 The State party submits that it is confirmed that the author participated in mass violence that started on 11 June 2010. The author participated in calling for mass violence against law enforcement agents and destruction of property. He himself actively participated in these events. On 12 June 2010, the author and his accomplices intended to kill a person of Kyrgyz ethnicity near “Myrzalim” café which is located in Karasuy district. They attacked Mr. U.K, a person who was present at that time near the “Myrzalim” café; hit him with wooden sticks, and Mr. U.K. died as a result. 4.3 On 23 June 2010, the deputy prosecutor of Karasuy district initiated a criminal investigation against the author. The deputy prosecutor also asked the Karasuy district court to order the author’s detention pending trial. The author was arrested on 24 July 2010. From the moment of his arrest, he was provided with a lawyer, Mr. I.T. This lawyer was able to participate in all investigation activities. The lawyer had an unlimited access to the author. 4.4 The State party submits that neither the author nor his lawyer ever challenged the court order regarding the author’s arrest. 4.5 As a result of the Karasuy district court hearings, the author was sentenced to 23 years of imprisonment on 27 August 2010. The verdict and the sentence were based on several articles of the Criminal Code of Kyrgyzstan, such as mass violence, mass riots, murder, robbery and others. The author filed an appeal to the Osh regional court, which changed the lower court’s verdict, and excluded two articles of the Criminal Code. The author filed a subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court of Kyrgyzstan. 4.6 The Supreme Court of Kyrgyzstan, in turn, overturned the Osh regional court’s decision, and reinstated the Karasuy district court’s verdict and sentence dated 27 August 2010. 4.7 During the investigation, and during his trial, the author did not complain about torture or other forms of ill-treatment. Such complaints are not part of his initial appeal either. These complaints were only made when another lawyer, Ms. T.T. started representing author during court hearings in the Osh regional court, starting from 2 September 2010. The verdict and sentence therefore became final, and are not subject to any further appeals. 4.8 It was also established that the author has never filed a torture complaint to the prosecutor’s office or to the police. Based on the afore-mentioned, it can be concluded that the torture allegations were made by the author “in order to avoid criminal punishment”. The prosecutor’s office, nevertheless, will conduct an investigation into these allegations. 4.9 The State party submits that the author is currently imprisoned in the city of Osh prison No. 10. There are currently no complaints from the author or his lawyer regarding the conditions of his imprisonment. Based on the medical examination, “there are no signs of bodily injuries”. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 5.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 5.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of investigation or settlement. 5.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that he has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to him. In the absence of any objection by the State party, the 4