CCPR/C/124/D/2892/2016 training before he was arrested and signed the statement in the SIZO records. The SIZO medical unit did not receive any complaints from the author. According to the author, he had been instructed by the police officers before the examination to say that the bruises were a result of his sports activities. 2.6 On 3 August 2012, the author filed a complaint with the prosecutor general’s office against the police officers who had allegedly tortured him. On 8 August, a letter from the prosecutor general’s office was sent to the author’s mother, informing the author that the decision not to open a criminal case dated 30 July 2012 had been repealed and that the case was sent to the Bishkek city prosecutor’s office for additional investigation. 2.7 On 9 September 2012, the Bishkek city prosecutor’s office refused to open a criminal case. The prosecutor referred to the criminal case against the author to justify the police officers’ statement that they had not abused their power when questioning the author. The prosecutor questioned the author but failed to question the witnesses named by his mother – the author’s cellmates from SIZO No. 1 – who had seen his injuries. The prosecutor arrived at the conclusion that there was no evidence to support the author’s allegations of torture. The prosecutor general’s office repealed this decision on 12 December 2012. 2.8 On 28 December 2012, the Pervomaysky district prosecutor’s office, after carrying out an additional investigation, again made a decision not to open a criminal case. The prosecutor referred to a medical certificate from Bishkek city hospital No. 4 dated 17 February 2012, according to which the author had been examined by a doctor, who found bruises on his body. The prosecutor attached to his decision an answer to inquiries sent to SIZO No. 1 that it was impossible to locate the persons detained in the cell with the author. 2.9 On 30 September 2013, the author’s new counsel submitted a request to the Pervomaysky district court to repeal the decision of the Pervomaysky district prosecutor’s office dated 28 December 2012 on the grounds that it was unlawful and ungrounded. On 16 November 2013, the court found that the orders of the prosecutor general’s office dated 12 December 2012 had not been carried out. In particular, the author’s cellmates from SIZO No. 1 had not been located and the head and the officers of IVS GUVD, where the author was detained from 16 to 18 February 2012, had not been questioned about the injuries recorded in medical certificate No. 927 dated 17 February 2012. The court overturned the decision of the prosecutor’s office and sent the case back for further investigation. 2.10 On 7 December 2013, the Pervomaysky district prosecutor’s office again refused to open a criminal case, including in its decision information previously collected by the prosecutors. The prosecutor’s office concluded that the author’s complaints had been fabricated with the aim of avoiding liability. 2.11 The counsel appealed the decision dated 7 December 2013 to the Pervomaysky district court in Bishkek on 25 February 2014. The court rejected the appeal on 14 March, 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. On 26 March, the counsel filed a cassation appeal with the city court in Bishkek, which was rejected on 13 May. The counsel appealed to the Supreme Court under the supervisory review proceedings on 19 May. His appeal was rejected on 15 July. The complaint 3.1 The author alleges a violation of his rights under article 7 of the Covenant in view of the repeated beatings, psychological threats concerning his children, threat of rape and suffocation with plastic bags to which he was subjected by police officers. 3.2 The author alleges that for more than two years he tried, without success, to have a criminal case opened against the police officers who had tortured him. He alleges that the State party failed to effectively investigate his allegations, in violation of article 2 (3), in conjunction with article 7, of the Covenant. 3.3 Finally, the author claims that he was forced, by the use of torture, to incriminate himself, in violation of article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant. 3