CAT/C/60/D/573/2013 5.4 The complainants also contest the accuracy of the medical examinations that they received upon arrival in Tbilisi prison No. 8 on 13 October 2010 and maintain that the injuries documented in the medical records from the temporary detention facility, issued on 10 October 2010, could not have completely faded by the time the complainants were transferred. They claim that the doctor on duty at prison No. 8 failed to record their injuries, that the medical record issued by prison No. 8 on 29 February 2012 is inaccurate and that the forensic medical report from 2012 is also incorrect since it is based on those earlier documents. They submit that they complained to the prosecutor’s office about the medic in prison No. 8 but the complaint was ignored. 5.5 The complainants also submit that the State party’s officials sought to prevent the complainants from bringing their claim to the authorities and to the Committee and have threatened the complainants and a member of their family. The second complainant submits that he was forced to sign the testimony from his interrogation on 11 November 2010, in which it is written that he only made his claims of ill-treatment by police officers because he was angry at them. He states that the investigator threatened him and forced him to sign the testimony, which is in Georgian, a language that he does not read and barely speaks. The complainants also allege that they had asked a social worker in the prison on 17 June 2013 to make a copy of the communication that they intended to send to the Committee, but the deputy director of the prison intercepted it and sent it to the prosecutor’s office, in accordance with article 14 (4) of the prisoner’s code which permits such interference with prisoner correspondence when it threatens the public order or safety or the rights and freedoms of others. Their communication was not returned to them until 3 July 2013 and their subsequent complaint about it being withheld was never investigated. The complainants also submitted that the first complainant’s son (the second complainant’s brother) was beaten in October 2013 by attackers who told him that they were acting on orders from the Minister of Corrections and that he should tell the complainants to stop writing complaints. The second complainant alleges that he was also threatened by unidentified individuals while he was undergoing a medical examination in a clinic outside the prison in February 2014. The complainants refer to several other incidents where they were ill-treated or threatened in prison. 5.6 The complainants reiterate that the second complainant, who suffers from diabetes, was denied insulin injections for the entire period of his detention in the police station and the temporary detention facility, which resulted in him developing a decompensated form of diabetes and diminished eyesight. State party’s additional observations on admissibility and the merits 6.1 On 5 March 2015, the State party reiterated its observations with regard to the admissibility of the communication. It added that the investigations into the complainants’ allegations, unified into one proceeding on 15 February 2013 by the prosecutor of the Investigation Unit of the Tbilisi Prosecutor’s Office, were still ongoing. 6.2 The State party also maintained that the facts of the case did not disclose a violation of the Convention because even if the allegations of the complainants were assumed to be true, the alleged ill-treatment had not attained the minimum level of severity to reach the threshold of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The State party maintained that “not all types of harsh treatment” fell within the scope of the Convention8 and that the forensic medical examinations in the present case had revealed injuries that belonged to the category of light injuries without damage to the complainants’ health. Furthermore, no injuries were identified on the complainants when they arrived at Tbilisi prison No. 8 on 13 October 2010, indicating that their injuries were not serious. According to the medical records, on 11 October 2010, upon placement in the temporary detention facility, the second complainant had a bleeding scratch on the upper part of his forehead and a small bruise in the area of his right cheekbone, his eyebrows and right jaw were swollen and he had multiple excoriations around the neck and both clavicles. He had 8 6 The State party referred to the European Court of Human Rights: Soering v. the United Kingdom (application No. 14038/88), judgment of 7 July 1989, para. 100; and Stefan Iliev v. Bulgaria, (application No. 53121/99), judgment of 10 May 2007.