CCPR/C/113/D/2054/2011 The fact that the criminal investigation was overseen by a prosecutor was not sufficient to guarantee its independence, because the prosecutor relied on the evidence gathered by the police. The author refers to the findings of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, who reported after his visit to Kyrgyzstan that “prosecutors often appear unwilling to initiate criminal prosecutions in this regard, and the Special Rapporteur was not able to obtain information on any criminal prosecutions that have been brought for torture or ill-treatment” (see E/CN.4/2006/52/Add.3, para. 29). The author points out that, as a result of the inadequate investigation, no one has been held criminally responsible for the torture and death of his brother. The internal investigation led only to mild disciplinary sanctions against police officers: one oral warning, one order to strengthen control over staff and a sanction for unsatisfactory organization of work; the latter was not imposed because the police officer was already under a strict warning for an earlier offence. The author maintains that the investigation was not impartial, because it never considered any possible cause of death other than suicide. The author also maintains that the investigation was not efficient because it excluded the family of the victim: they were not informed of its progress, their requests that the torture be investigated were ignored, they were denied the right to question the forensic medical experts or to have an independent expert present, and no final report of the investigation was published or made available to the family. 3.5 The author lastly submits that the State party failed to provide access to effective remedies, including compensation and adequate reparation, in further violation of articles 6 (1) and 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant. The author submits that the domestic law prevents the family from submitting a civil claim for compensation for the death of the author’s brother, since it requires a criminal conviction to have been issued against an agent of the State.15 Even if a claim for negligence might have been possible in the light of the disciplinary penalties imposed as a result of the internal police investigation, such a claim would have been inadequate to compensate the victim’s family for his abuse and death. In practice, even that inadequate avenue was precluded, because the authorities refused to provide the family with an official copy of the results of the investigation. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 13 July and 16 November 2011 and on 14 March 2012, the State party submitted that a criminal investigation for forced sodomy had been initiated against Rakhmonberdi Ernazarov on 4 November 2005, based on a complaint filed by the father of his former girlfriend; he was arrested that same day. On 7 November 2005, he was charged under article 130 (2) of the Criminal Code. On 20 November 2005, at around 6:30 a.m., the author’s brother was delivered to the Osh hospital with injuries and he died shortly thereafter. On 21 November 2005, an investigator opened a criminal investigation under article 104 (4) of the Criminal Code (deliberate infliction of heavy bodily injuries, resulting in death). On 24 November 2005, the investigation was discontinued in accordance with article 28 (1.7) (circumstances excluding criminal responsibility). 16 According to information from the Supreme Court, on 28 December 2006, the Osh City Court rejected the complaint of the author against the decision of the Prosecutor’s Office. 17 The appeal 15 16 17 6 The author refers to the summary prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 (A/HRC/WG.6/8/KGZ/3), para. 28. The State party does not specify in its submission which law it is referring to with respect to the citation of article 28 (1.7). The State party’s submission does not specify which decision of the Prosecutor’s Office was under appeal.