CCPR/C/130/D/2160/2012 the Committee, including the author’s communication. The author submits that the searches amounted to grave violations of domestic and international law. 11 State party’s additional observations 6.1 In a note verbale dated 24 July 2015, the State party provided information on the search conducted in the offices of the Bir Duyno Kyrgyzstan human rights movement. The State party submits that, on 25 March 2015, two officers of the Migration Service of Kyrgyzstan requested the Osh city police department to take action against Umar Farouk, a national of the United States of America, who was allegedly collecting information on migration in the region. On the same day, the police detained Mr. Farouk and, after searching him, seized his personal electronic equipment, two procedural documents issued by the provincial department of the National Security Committee charging two local men with inciting inter-ethnic and religious hatred, various texts on the Islamic religion and business cards of the author’s counsel and his colleague. It was found that Mr. Farouk had introduced himself to others as a journalist working for various foreign mass media outlets, who was collecting information on the religious, inter-ethnic and cross-border situation in the south of the country. However, he was not accredited as a foreign journalist by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as required by the law. 6.2 A forensic theological 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 “inciting interreligious hatred”. 6.3 On 27 March 2015, pursuant to a court ruling, the offices and places of residence of the author’s counsel 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 related 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, some of the electronic equipment and some of the documents seized during the search of 27 March 2015 were 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 of Kyrgyzstan; the appeal is pending. The State party proposes to provide further information on this matter after the Supreme Court of Kyrgyzstan renders its decision. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 7.1 On 12 December 2017, the author reiterated that he had exhausted all domestic remedies. He was not able to exhaust all domestic legal remedies with regard to his claims of torture, because, if he complained, he would have endangered the lives of witnesses and his relatives. 7.2 The author rejects the State party’s submission that his health was satisfactory and that he did not complain about any injuries to the pretrial detention facility’s medical staff. He submits that the photograph taken from his criminal case file, where he can be seen sitting in the police department with a bandaged head and a hematoma under his right eye, proves that he was subjected to beatings.12 Moreover, on 29 September 2010, he was again subjected to torture during the recess in the court hearing, when several soldiers from the local military unit and policemen entered the cells in which he and his co-defendants were being held and started beating them to force them to confess to all the crimes with which they were charged. The author argues that the above-mentioned facts refute the State party’s allegations that, 11 12 In a note verbale dated 30 March 2015, the Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures requested the State party to make sure that no reprisals were taken against the authors, their families, witnesses or representatives as a result of the submission of the communications. The photograph was provided with the communication. 5