CCPR/C/124/D/2892/2016 Annex Individual opinion of Committee member José Santos Pais (dissenting) 1. I regret not being able to share the Committee’s conclusion that the State party violated the author’s rights under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant (para. 8). 2. There are several allegations of torture in the present case, but when analysed in detail, doubts arise as to author’s credibility. According to the author, on 15 February 2012, he was arrested by police on suspicion of murder and car theft (para. 2.1). He was later sentenced to 18 years in prison (para. 4.1). He was allegedly beaten by police officers during his arrest and taken to the police department in Bishkek, where he was again beaten while lying on the floor. That same day, police officers hit him several times on the head and soft body parts with their hands and feet (para. 2.1), two plastic bags were put on his head, he resisted and received a blow to the ribs on the left side (para. 2.2). However, author does not provide any description of his injuries, nor does he mention a visit to a hospital or any medical check-ups in the detention facilities where he was kept. 3. The author’s mother, on 17 April 2012, filed a complaint with the district prosecutor’s office in Bishkek about the alleged torture of her son by police officers, i.e. two months after his arrest. The prosecutor questioned the police officers who allegedly were involved in the beating and also requested information contained in medical documents from detention facilities where author was kept. According to these documents, the author did not complain about any physical injuries. Therefore, the district prosecutor refused to open a criminal case, citing the lack of evidence (para. 2.3). It should also be kept in mind that eventual traces of physical injury, if indeed this did occur, should have disappeared by then. 4. It is true that the Bishkek city prosecutor’s office reversed the prosecutor’s decision several times and ordered additional investigations to be carried out. The district prosecutor still refused to open a criminal case (para. 2.4). However, on 30 July 2012, even the Bishkek city prosecutor’s office decided not to open a criminal case on the basis of newly collected information, namely the results of a forensic examination, according to which author did not have any injuries (para. 2.5). It should also be mentioned that the author does not refer to any forensic examination at all and claims such an examination did not take place. 5. The prosecutor also questioned the general practitioner of pretrial detention centre (SIZO) No. 1, who explained that on 18 February 2012, when the author was admitted and had allegedly been repeatedly beaten on the head, soft body parts and his left ribs (para. 2 above) just three days earlier, he had bruises only on both shoulders, not the head. A further medical certificate from Bishkek city hospital also stated that author had bruises. However, when asked about the nature of the bruises, the author explained to the general practitioner that he had been bruised at his sports training before he was arrested and signed the statement in the SIZO records. Further, the SIZO medical unit did not receive any complaints from the author (paras. 2.5 and 2.8). 6. It is true that the author continued to present complaints to the authorities (paras. 2.6−2.10), but these complaints were seen to be fabricated with the aim of avoiding liability (para. 2.10) and the district court finally rejected the author’s appeal on 14 March 2014, having found that the decision of the prosecutor had been based on a thorough investigation and that the author’s allegations could not be confirmed (para. 2.11). 7. According to the available evidence and facts presented by both the author and the State party, it is difficult to establish whether the author indeed suffered any physical injury and whether the State party’s authorities failed to duly investigate his allegations effectively, in spite of having repeatedly opened and closed investigations relating to them. Since, due to the lapse of time, any traces of physical injury were – and are still – no longer observable, any criminal investigation would fail to establish such injury. Moreover, statements signed 8