CAT/C/61/D/661/2015 8.2 The Committee notes that the complainant has alleged a violation of articles 1 and 2 (1) of the Convention on the grounds that the State party failed in its duty to prevent and punish acts of torture. These provisions are applicable insofar as the acts to which the complainant’s son was subjected are determined to be acts of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention.5 In this respect, the Committee notes the results of forensic medical examinations that concluded that the deceased’s body bore a number of bruises. In addition, it is also clear to the Committee that Dmitry Rakishev suffered great physical pain, and the administration of the detention facility was forced to call an ambulance. Despite the recommendations by the doctors that he needed to be hospitalized, the chief of the detention facility refused to authorize it. The Committee recalls provisions of the Istanbul Protocol according to which the methods of torture can be both physical and psychological, and can include deprivation of such basic needs as food, water and medical care, among other things. 6 The Committee considers that the lack of medical assistance and the refusal to hospitalize Dmitry Rakishev in critical condition can be characterized as severe pain and suffering inflicted intentionally by an official to obtain a forced confession. 8.3 The Committee considers that under these circumstances, the State party should be presumed liable for the harm caused to Dmitry Rakishev unless it provides a compelling alternative explanation. In the present case, the State party conducted an investigation into A.D.’s negligence. A.D. was convicted and sentenced, but never served a day of imprisonment. Besides these charges, no torture charges were brought against any perpetrators. In the absence of such torture-specific charges and an investigation, and in the circumstances of the present communication, the Committee considers that due weight must be given to the author’s detailed allegations. Accordingly, based on the detailed account of the medical condition of Dmitry Rakishev, the refusal by A.D. to hospitalize him, testimonies from at least two witnesses and the corroboration of his allegations in the forensic medical documentation, the Committee concludes that the facts as reported constitute torture by the police within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention and that the State party failed in its duty to prevent and punish acts of torture, in violation of article 2 (1) of the Convention. 8.4 The Committee notes the complainant’s claims that fall under article 11 of the Convention and the description of measures taken to combat torture provided by the State party. The Committee considers, however, that the information provided by the State party on its efforts to prevent and combat torture is of a general nature and does not demonstrate that it has taken specific measures to prevent torture in this place of detention. Moreover, the State party has not taken measures “to provide appropriate and effective medical care of prisoners and detained persons, including adequate medicines and examination by independent doctors”. 7 Despite the Committee’s recommendation to transfer the administration of health care to the Ministry of Health, 8 the doctors at the detention facilities still report to the management of these facilities and therefore cannot be considered independent. Consequently, and in the circumstances of the present case, the Committee finds that the State party is responsible for a violation of article 11 of the Convention. 8.5 The complainant also claims that no prompt, impartial and effective investigation was carried out into his allegations of torture and that those responsible have not been prosecuted, in violation of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention. The Committee notes the unrefuted evidence that Ashim Rakishev raised torture claims regarding his son on numerous occasions. 8.6 The Committee notes that the State party did conduct two distinct investigations. One investigation, against A.D., chief of the detention facility, resulted in a guilty verdict, based on his negligence, under article 316 (2) of the Criminal Code. The Committee notes 5 6 7 8 See communication No. 269/2005, Ali Ben Salem v. Tunisia, decision adopted on 7 November 2007, para. 16.4. Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, para. 145 (n). See CAT/C/KAZ/CO/3, para. 17 (b). Ibid., para. 17 (c). 7