CAT/C/60/D/573/2013 Upon receipt of the medical examination record, on 6 November 2010, an investigation was launched by the Investigation Unit of the Tbilisi Prosecutor’s Office. On the same day, investigators questioned the police officers who had participated in the arrest of the second complainant. On 11 November 2010, an investigator questioned the second complainant about the allegations noted in his medical examination record. However, the second complainant stated that he had no complaints against the police officers and explained that his previous complaints were the result of his anger because of his arrest.4 The investigative authorities obtained the second complainant’s medical records from the temporary detention facility and Tbilisi prison No. 8. The State party noted that no injuries were identified during the examination conducted upon the second complainant’s arrival at Tbilisi prison No. 8 on 13 October 2010. The investigator also ordered a forensic medical examination, which took place on 5 March 2012, and which concluded that the medical examination records of 11 October 2010 and 13 October 2010 revealed light injuries but did not establish when exactly these were sustained. 5 On 9 March 2012, the investigator again questioned the second complainant, who stated that he had been physically assaulted by the police. 4.4 On 15 February 2013, the prosecutor of the Investigation Unit of the Tbilisi Prosecutor’s Office merged the investigations into the complainants’ allegations. At the time of the State party’s submission (made on 6 May 2014), the investigation was still pending. 4.5 The State party maintains that the communication should be rejected on the grounds that the complainants failed to exhaust domestic remedies and because the allegations are manifestly unfounded. In particular, the State party asserts that the second complainant never alleged that he was subjected to attempted rape, burned with cigarettes or threatened with being thrown through the window during official questioning or in other procedures at the domestic level. The State party notes that while the second complainant’s lawyer requested on 2 November 2010 that he receive a forensic medical examination, this was only in relation to the complainant’s diabetes. The State party also notes that the complainant has not given any evidence to the Committee to support his allegations that he was burned or subjected to attempted rape. 4.6 The State party also alleges that the complainants have not exhausted domestic remedies as required by article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention since they did not wait for the final outcome of the investigation into their torture allegations before applying to the Committee. The State party alleges that the complainant generally bears the burden of proof and must show that domestic remedies have been exhausted or that domestic remedies are ineffective. The State party referred to R. v. France, where the Committee decided that a communication was inadmissible because the author had not demonstrated that his appeals to the national remedies had little chance of success.6 4.7 The State party asserts that in the present case the complainants have not shown that domestic remedies have been ineffective, and that to the contrary, the State party’s authorities have investigated their claims notwithstanding the complainants’ inconsistent conduct. The State party contested the first complainant’s assertion that the investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment commenced on 26 November 2011 (more than one year after his arrest), and submitted that the investigation was in fact launched soon after his arrest, on 6 November 2010, after the investigative authorities had received the second complainant’s medical examination record. Nevertheless, the first complainant did not “express requisite due diligence” and complained to the Tbilisi Prosecutor’s Office only a year after the alleged ill-treatment had occurred, which undermined the effectiveness of the investigation.7 The State party noted that the first complainant had said, on 10 October 2010, 4 5 6 7 4 The State party submitted an English translation of the interrogation record of the second complainant, dated 11 November 2010. The State party submitted a copy of the report of the forensic medical examination. Communication No. 52/1996, decision of admissibility adopted on 10 November 1997. The State party referred to the European Court of Human Rights, Varnava and others v. Turkey (applications Nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90), judgment of 18 September 2009, para. 161.