CAT/C/61/D/661/2015 there is a report concluding that it was necessary to hospitalize Dmitry Rakishev; that the chief of the detention centre, A.D. while under investigation harassed and threatened witnesses, including N.G. 5.5 The State party does not explain why the criminal investigation against medical personnel was discontinued in 2011 and reinstated only in 2015. To date, the complainant has had no information regarding the results of this investigation. No report was provided based on the examination of 30 June 2015, which allegedly was conducted by the authorities. The complainant further indicates that all investigations have been carried out by the Stepnogorsk police. This means that there will be no thorough, prompt and impartial investigation by authorities. 5.6 The State party, instead of initiating a torture investigation, limited itself to considering negligence by the chief of the detention centre and medical personnel. Meanwhile, several witnesses, such as K.N., who testified in court, and N.G., who submitted written testimony, said that Dmitry Rakishev was beaten by the police officers for failure to appear in court for hearings. State party’s additional observations 6.1 In its submission dated 4 March 2016, the State party admitted that the chief of the detention facility, A.D., had committed negligence. According to article 16 (1) and (2) of law No. 353-1 on the order and conditions of detention of persons in specialized institutions which enforce temporary isolation from society, detained persons have a right to free medical services. Article 23 (1) of the law requires the administration of the detention facility to provide health services to suspects and accused persons. 6.2 Articles 1 and 17 of the rules on providing medical services to persons in detention require that a person must be hospitalized if the doctors of the detention facility or doctors of the ambulance service conclude that it is necessary. A.D. was duly informed about such a necessity but failed to authorize hospitalization due to his negligence. Since he did not receive proper medical care, Dmitry Rakishev died in his cell on 8 May 2011. The court concluded that A.D. was guilty of negligence. The court also concluded that A.D. did not foresee that his actions or inaction would have such dire consequences, but he should have foreseen them. 6.3 As submitted previously, the criminal investigation into actions or inaction of the medical personnel have been reinstated and is ongoing. To maintain the impartiality of the investigation, the case was transferred from the Stepnogorsk police to the Burabai regional department of the bureau to combat corruption. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering a claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. It notes that, in the present case, the State party has not submitted any challenges regarding the exhaustion of all available domestic remedies. Accordingly, the Committee finds no obstacles to admissibility; it declares the communication admissible and proceeds with the examination of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties concerned, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 6