CAT/C/60/D/573/2013 declared that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by police officers. An investigation was launched on 6 November 2010; the arresting officers were questioned and denied illtreating the complainant during or after the detention. They also stated that they had recorded in the arrest record only the injuries that they had visibly observed immediately after the arrest. When the complainant underwent another medical examination, upon being transferred to Tbilisi prison No. 8, no injuries were identified on him. On 11 November 2010, he retracted his allegations. 6.3 On 4 January 2012, the second complainant filed a complaint with the prosecutor’s office reiterating his claims that he had been ill-treated during his arrest. On 1 March 2012, the investigator ordered a forensic medical review. The medical review took place on 5 March 2012; on the basis of the medical records of 11 October and 13 October 2010, the experts concluded that the second complainant had suffered light injuries, but were not able to deduce the exact time at which he sustained these. On 9 March 2012, the second complainant was questioned and again asserted that he had been ill-treated by the arresting officers, and he named an investigator (B.D.), claiming that the latter had assaulted him while he was in detention. He also stated that another officer (T.A.) had visited him in prison and threatened that his brother would be arrested and his sentence would be prolonged if he continued to voice complaints. The second complainant also complained that he had not been provided with insulin from the time of his arrest until his placement in the temporary detention facility. 6.4 With regard to the medical expert’s opinion, dated 10 April 2014, submitted by the complainants to the Committee, the State party maintained that it had identified scar tissue on the second complainant’s hand and concluded that it could have resulted from a burn, but could not assert that categorically. It had also identified a scar in the lower inner quadrant of the left buttock, but it was impossible to determine the object with which that injury had been inflicted. The expert had not been able to establish the exact time at which the second complainant had sustained those injuries. The State party maintained that, since those injuries were not reflected in the medical records upon their receipt in the temporary detention facility, they could have been sustained at any time after his arrest. Furthermore, the second complainant never mentioned those injuries in his complaint to the domestic authorities. 6.5 The State party noted that the investigative authorities had interrogated the officers who had taken part in the arrest and that the latter had “denied any fact of verbal or physical abuse against the complainants during or after the detention”. The police officers referred to the record of the visual examination of the first complainant, where he had stated that he had “no complaints” upon being detained and that “the injuries identified on his body had appeared before his detention”. The State party also submitted that some of the officers also “denied any fact of unlawful action” by the detective and investigator T.A., “as well as from other officers”. The State party also refers to the available medical records of the two complainants and to the results of the forensic medical examination of 16 March 2012. It maintains that the results of the investigative activities with regard to the first complainant “clearly denied any acts of ill-treatment”, and that “comprehensive and objective investigation is ongoing into the allegations of the second complainant, in accordance with the obligation of the State under the Convention.” 6.6 The State party maintained that its officials’ interrogation methods and practices, as well as their treatment of the present complainants, were fully consistent with the provisions of the Convention. In the State party’s view, all of its investigative measures had been conducted impartially in line with the Convention and had revealed no signs of torture or other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the present case. The State party requested the Committee to find that there had been no violation of articles 1, 11, 12, 13 or 16 of the Convention. Complainants’ comments on the State party’s additional observations 7.1 On 9 July 2015, the complainants noted that at their first court hearing, on 13 October 2010, their lawyer had tried to request a medical examination to document their injuries, but a judge of Tbilisi City Court had refused the request. The complainants filed a complaint before the Supreme Judicial Council and were informed that the judge had been GE.17-09205 7