CCPR/C/130/D/2160/2012 after being transferred from the temporary detention unit to detention facility No. 50, he underwent a medical examination which concluded that his health condition was satisfactory. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Considerations of admissibility 8.1 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. 8.2 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. 8.3 The Committee notes the State party’s claim that the author failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his claim of arbitrary arrest because he did not appeal the decision of the Osh city court to remand him in custody. In the absence of any pertinent explanation from the author in this connection, the Committee considers that the author has failed to exhaust domestic remedies regarding his claim under article 9 (1), as required by article 5 (2) (b), and finds his claim inadmissible. 8.4 The Committee further observes that, when claiming a violation of article 26, the author refers to figures and information obtained from various reports by international human rights organizations. The Committee does not question the accuracy of the information. However, it considers that this information does not sufficiently substantiate the position of the author that, under the particular circumstances, he personally was the victim of direct or indirect discrimination on the basis of his ethnic origin. Accordingly, the Committee declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.5 In the Committee’s view, the author has sufficiently substantiated his claims under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a), and article 14 (1) and (3) (e) and (g) of the Covenant, for the purposes of admissibility. It therefore declares them admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that, early in the morning on 21 June 2010, a group of special forces soldiers accompanied by police officers entered his house in KaraSuu district of Osh province and severely beat him and his 15-year-old nephew; that they took him away but later left him unconscious in the street, where he was found by his neighbours, who took him to a hospital in Nariman village, where his injuries were recorded; that later that day, the police came to the hospital and took him to the provincial police department in Osh city, where he was subjected to further beatings. The Committee observes that the author has submitted a detailed account of the ill-treatment to which he claims having been subjected, supporting medical evidence and accounts of eyewitnesses. The Committee also notes that the author’s allegations remained unrefuted by the State party except for its submission that when, on 10 July 2010, the author was transferred from the temporary detention unit to detention facility No. 50, he underwent a medical examination which concluded that his health condition was satisfactory and that he did not have any healthrelated complaints. 9.3 The Committee further notes the author’s claim that, during the trial, on 29 September 2010, the author and his co-defendants told the Kara-Suu district court judge that their confessions had been obtained through torture and ill-treatment. The Committee also notes the author’s claim that, during a break in the court hearing that day, a group of police officers and soldiers beat him and other defendants in the case and told them to confess their guilt in court. The Committee observes that these allegations have not been refuted by the State party. 6