CCPR/C/124/D/2892/2016 3.4 The author asks the Committee to find a violation of the Covenant under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), and article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant; to urge the State party to carry out an effective investigation into his allegations and punish the officers guilty of torturing him; to provide him with remedies, including adequate compensation; and to urge the State party to establish guarantees to prevent torture and an independent mechanism to investigate allegations of torture. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 By note verbale dated 18 August 2017, the State party submitted its observations on the complaint. The State party states that the author was arrested on 15 February 2012 on suspicion of murder. He was charged on 14 March with murder under article 97 and with unlawful possession of a car under article 172 of the Criminal Code. On 15 March 2012, the author’s criminal file was submitted to the Pervomaysky district court for trial. By a judgment of the Pervomaysky district court dated 8 May 2013, the author was sentenced to 18 years in prison. The sentence was confirmed by the Bishkek city court on 21 May 2014. At the same time, the amnesty law adopted on the occasion of the sixty-fifth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was applied to the author and his unserved prison sentence was reduced by one fifth. The author’s guilt had been established on the basis of forensic, trasological and psychiatric examinations, witness statements, collected evidence and the initial confession of the author. The author’s guilt was also supported by the reconstitution of the situation and circumstances of events and by the on-site examination of his statements. During the trial there was no inadmissible evidence or circumstances that would put the author’s guilt in doubt. 4.2 The author’s allegations of torture were investigated on numerous occasions by the prosecutor’s office and could not be confirmed. The author’s claim that the decision of the prosecutor dated 7 December 2013 to refuse to open a criminal case was unlawful and unjustified was rejected by the Pervomaysky district court decision dated 14 March 2014. The findings of the Pervomaysky district court had been confirmed by the decision of the Bishkek city court on 13 May 2014 and by the Supreme Court on 15 July 2014. 4.3 Regarding the author’s request for compensation for torture, the State party submits that claims for compensation of moral damage are considered by the domestic courts of general jurisdiction, which assess the amount of compensation based on the character of the physical and moral damage suffered. The author has not requested compensation before the domestic courts. 4.4 The State party also notes that according to rule 96 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, the complaint should be submitted by the individual personally or by that individual’s representative when the individual in question is unable to submit the communication personally. According to the national legislation, a power of attorney for people who are serving a prison sentence should be signed by the prison director. This was not done in the case of the present communication. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 19 October 2017, the author provided comments on the State party’s observations. The author submits that the State party’s observations concerning his trial and his proven guilt are not relevant to the subject matter of the complaint; the author is not asking the Committee to review facts and evidence or to establish his innocence. 5.2 The second part of the State party’s observations does not provide answers concerning the effectiveness of the investigation of the author’s allegations of torture. The author repeats his allegations that the investigation was not effective, indicating that over a period of two years there were eight decisions not to open a criminal case against the police officers. None of the prosecutor’s orders for further investigation were implemented. The State party failed to carry out a full investigation into the author’s allegations of violations under articles 7 and 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant. In his complaint the author indicated the names of the police officers who had tortured him to confess. The prosecutors only questioned persons with an interest in hiding the fact of torture. The prosecutor’s office did not even order a forensic examination at the beginning of the investigation. They failed to 4