CCPR/C/124/D/2892/2016 locate the witnesses indicated by the author and his mother. In the subsequent decisions, the prosecutors mentioned that, according to a medical certificate dated 17 February 2012, the author had bruises and could be detained in IVS. Despite the explicit indication that the author had injuries the investigation was closed, with reference to a statement from the head of IVS – an institution fully accountable to the Ministry of Internal Affairs – that no complaints had been received from the author. Prosecutors, without duly checking the author’s allegations, referred to the criminal case against the author as being in itself an indication that the police officers had not abused their power. They also indicated that the complaint submitted by the author’s mother was an attempt to avoid liability. 1 5.3 Regarding the claim for compensation, the author submits that the national legislation does not allow an alleged victim of torture to submit a civil suit for compensation until the perpetrators are found guilty by a criminal court. In the author’s case, since the investigation was not carried out properly, a criminal case was not opened and he cannot submit a civil claim. In addition, the State party did not provide examples of cases where moral damage had been compensated by the courts. 5.4 Finally, the author states that the Committee does not require the signature of the director of a prison; the author’s signature on a power of attorney alone is sufficient. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted. It also notes the State party’s observation that the domestic remedies have not been exhausted on the matter of compensation for the torture allegedly suffered by the author. The Committee observes that the domestic authorities denied that torture took place and refused to open a criminal case against the police officers. It is thus unclear on what grounds the author could have filed a civil suit for compensation, which is linked to the outcome of the criminal proceedings against the perpetrators. In the absence of other objections from the State party regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies by the author, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 6.4 As to the author’s claim under article 14 (3) (g), the Committee notes that this article applies in the determination of a criminal charge. The author did not provide details on his trial, did not attach a copy of the judgment in his case and did not raise claims of arbitrariness of the judicial proceedings in his criminal case. On the basis of the information available on file, the Committee is not able to assess the extent to which the author’s confession, allegedly obtained under torture, was taken into account by the court in the final 1 +The author’s counsel submits that in 2013, a coalition of non-governmental organizations submitted an alternative report to the Committee against Torture. Part of the report concerned investigations of allegations of torture by the State party. In the report, it is stated that, despite the legal requirement to treat complaints of torture as allegations of a crime, they are often processed as simple complaints about actions of law enforcement agencies. In these cases, criminal cases are not opened and the complaints are either ignored or, at best, lead to an internal investigation. Such investigations end with questioning of police officers, who deny the fact of torture, after which the prosecutors decide not to open a criminal case. The proper investigative steps, such as checking the rooms where torture was inflicted, questioning the witnesses indicated by the victim and carrying out medical check-ups or forensic examinations, are not followed. Internal investigations are usually confidential; the alleged victim is not informed of the steps taken, does not have access to the relevant documents, cannot submit evidence and does not have all the rights a victim in a criminal case would have. 5