CCPR/C/116/D/2193/2012 there any guarantee that they would be able to speak to the applicant without witnesses. In addition, their potential involvement was not supported by any practical mechanism setting out, for instance, a procedure by which the applicant could lodge complaints with them or for their unfettered access to detention facilities … The Government’s claim that unnamed individuals have been visited in Kyrgyzstan after their extradition has not been supported by any evidence and thus cannot be considered as an illustration of the existence of a monitoring mechanism in the requesting country3 5.5 Finally, as to the State party’s observation that the author is residing in Moscow, counsel submits that, according to the latest information available to her, the author has been extradited to Kyrgyzstan and she is not in the possession of any information concerning his fate. State party’s additional observations on admissibility and the merits 6.1 On 11 June 2015, the State party noted that it forwarded to the Office of the Prosecutor General of Kyrgyzstan the information concerning the allegedly unlawful actions of the Kyrgyz law enforcement officials with respect to the author and his brother in Kyrgyzstan. The Office of the Prosecutor General of Kyrgyzstan examined the information and established that the author’s brother had already complained to it about the ill-treatment in August 2011 in Bishkek and that his complaint had been forwarded, for examination, to the Office of the Prosecutor in Bishkek on 14 June 2012. On 24 June 2012, however, that Office refused to initiate criminal proceedings owing to a lack of corpus delicti. Therefore, the author’s allegations are manifestly unfounded. In that connection, the State party notes that examination of the lawfulness of the said decision does not fall within its competence. 6.2 The State party further reiterates that, upon arrival at the Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Solnechnogorsk District on 19 August 2011, the author did not complain about any ill-treatment during his arrest. His counsel lodged a complaint about the alleged ill-treatment only on 11 October 2012, in other words more than one year after the alleged events. Following the counsel’s complaint, the Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee of the Moscow Region in Solnechnogorsk examined the allegations. The officers who had apprehended the author (from the Head Office of the Investigative Committee of the Moscow Region), staff of the Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Solnechnogorsk District and Krykov police officers were questioned; all maintained that the author was not subjected to ill-treatment. As a result, on 29 April 2015, the Office of the Prosecutor in Solnechnogorsk adopted a decision not to initiate criminal proceedings owing to lack of corpus delicti in relation to the officers’ actions. The State party notes that that decision was revoked in April 2015 and that the Head Office of the Investigative Committee of the Moscow Region has ordered an additional comprehensive inquiry, which has included the sending of a request to the Kyrgyz authorities to provide legal assistance. The additional examination is supervised by the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation. The State party notes that the head office of the Investigative Committee of the Moscow Region has ordered the Head of the Investigation Department in Solnechnogorsk to take measures concerning the fact that no decision based on law had been adopted for a long period of time. 6.3 The State party reiterates that, from the moment of his apprehension on 19 August 2011, the author was ensured legal assistance. In addition, he was offered the opportunity, throughout his extradition proceedings, to present his arguments as to why he should not be 3 Saliyev v. Russia (application No. 39093/13), European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 17 April 2014, para. 66. 7