CAT/C/60/D/573/2013 at the medical examination conducted after his placement in the temporary detention facility, that the injuries identified during that examination were sustained before his detention, and that he had no claims against the law enforcement officials. The State party also noted that the second complainant retracted his allegations of ill-treatment during his first interrogation on 11 November 2010 but the authorities nevertheless undertook efforts to obtain evidence and conducted a forensic medical examination after he reasserted his allegations during his second interrogation on 9 March 2012. 4.8 The State party notes that the Tbilisi Prosecutor’s Office, which had launched the official investigation into the allegations, is independent from those implicated in the alleged ill-treatment, both institutionally and in practice, and that the investigative activities that had been conducted included medical examinations and multiple interrogations of the witnesses. In the light of the above-mentioned efforts undertaken by the investigative authorities, the State party maintains that the complainants should have waited for the final outcome of the investigation before applying to the Committee. 4.9 The State party also notes that on 25 June 2011, Tbilisi City Court found the complainants guilty of having committed crimes under articles 144 (kidnapping), 181 (extortion), 236 (illicit purchase, keeping, carrying, production, shipment, transfer or sale of firearms, ammunitions, explosive materials or explosive devices) and 260 (illicit preparation, production, purchase, keeping, shipment, transfer or sale of narcotics) of the Criminal Code of Georgia. The first complainant was sentenced to 30 years of imprisonment and the second complainant was sentenced to 32 years of imprisonment. By a judgment of 26 December 2011, the Tbilisi Court of Appeal upheld the decision of Tbilisi City Court. On 16 March 2012, the Supreme Court examined the appeals of the complainants and, after considering the facts of the case, modified the previous decisions, sentencing the first complainant to 24 years of imprisonment and the second complainant to 26 years of imprisonment. Complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 28 July 2014, the complainants informed the Committee that as a result of an amnesty granted in 2012, the charges under articles 260 (possession of narcotics) and 236 (possession of ammunition) of the Criminal Code had been removed from their verdicts and their sentences had been reduced from 12 to 9 years of imprisonment. 5.2 Regarding the State party’s claim that they failed to exhaust domestic remedies, the complainants refer to a letter that they received from the Ombudsman’s office on 22 May 2014, to which was attached a copy of an order dated 19 May 2014 stating that the investigation into their claims had been transferred, on 29 March 2013, to the General Inspectorate of the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia. According to the complainants, the General Inspectorate had not conducted any investigative actions, and the last meaningful investigative action in their case had taken place in March 2012. This demonstrated that the domestic remedies available to them were ineffective. Furthermore, they alleged that one of the main suspects (T.A., see para. 2.4 above) was never questioned and that they were never asked to identify in a line-up the officers who had ill-treated them. On 5 September 2013, the complainants had filed a complaint with the prosecutor’s office regarding its failure to identify and punish the individuals who had ill-treated them. 5.3 The complainants contest the State party’s claim that the second complainant never raised with the domestic authorities his allegations concerning attempted rape and being burned with cigarettes. The complainants also note the risks that arise for prisoners who raise allegations of sexual assault, as they are likely to be labelled as homosexuals and exposed to a high risk of abuse by other prisoners. The complainants also state that on 15 April 2014 they obtained a medical expert’s report concerning the second complainant, which reveals a scar on his hand resulting from local exposure to a high temperature, and a scar on his left buttock, consistent with his allegations of attempted rape. The complainants sent that report, together with a description of the treatment they endured, to numerous State institutions, including the President, the Ombudsman, the President of the Supreme Court and the Parliamentary Committees. GE.17-09205 5