CAT/C/61/D/661/2015 be established that there had been violations of his son’s rights to life, dignity and security of the person, to effective legal remedies, to a fair trial and to legal assistance. On 6 November, the Akmolinsk Regional Court upheld the lower court’s decision. 2.13 On 23 April 2013, the complainant submitted a complaint to the Supreme Court within the supervisory review proceedings requesting that the case be reviewed. On 10 June, the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. In addition, on 19 September, the Office of the Prosecutor General also rejected the complainant’s supervisory complaint on the grounds that no violations of material and procedural norms had been found. 2.14 The complainant submitted to the prosecutors’ office and during the trial of A.D., as well as within the subsequent appellate and cassation proceedings challenging the Stepnogorsk City Court’s judgment of 7 September 2012, some 40 complaints and motions concerning the fact of his son’s torture while in the short-term detention facility of Stepnogorsk; all were in vain. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that his son was subjected to torture to force him to testify against himself, in violation of article 1 of the Convention. 3.2 The complainant further claims that the State party failed to assure the security of his son and to stop the acts of torture in the pretrial detention facility, contrary to article 2 of the Convention. 3.3 The complainant also claims that the State party failed to monitor the implementation of the regulations concerning medical assistance to detained and convicted persons, in violation of article 11 of the Convention. As a consequence, the complainant’s son was denied medical assistance on a number of occasions. 3.4 The complainant also claims that the State party failed to initiate a prompt and impartial investigation concerning the fact of his son’s torture, in violation of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention. 3.5 He finally claims that the State party did not provide him with fair and adequate compensation, contrary to article 14 of the Convention. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 30 July 2015, the State party submitted that it carries out “systematic measures” to combat torture and other types of ill-treatment. The State party ratified the Convention in 1998 and joined the Optional Protocol in 2008. 4.2 The Prosecutor General of the Republic of Kazakhstan approved instructions to handle complaints regarding torture. In February 2009, the State party approved an action plan to amend the national legislation to conform with its international obligations. Also, action plans were approved to monitor places of detention, including monitoring of places of detention by non-governmental organizations. 4.3 Article 146 1 of the Criminal Code of Kazakhstan prohibits torture, in accordance with the requirements of article 1 of the Convention. When complaints of torture are made, the Prosecutor General mandates the participation of medical doctors in documenting injuries. 4.4 The State party also established a national preventive mechanism. It has simplified the procedure for submitting a torture complaint and its consideration. Each place of detention has a special “complaints box” accessible to all detainees. Also, the current Criminal Procedure Code calls for the suppression of evidence if it is obtained as a result of torture. Furthermore, victims of torture can claim financial compensation, which is paid by the State party. 4.5 Regarding the merits of the present communication, the State party submits that on 29 December 2010, Dmitry Rakishev was indeed charged with theft. When he was 1 Formerly article 141-1 of the Criminal Code, which was in force until 1 January 2015. 3