CCPR/C/120/D/2173/2012 remedies for violations of human rights such as those protected by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. He also claims that access to the files of the criminal case was necessary to ensure an effective investigation of the case. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 22 August 2013 and 3 April 2014, the State party provided its observations on the admissibility and merits of the present communication. 4.2 The State party submits that on 19 February 2010, the author’s son was detained by several police officers on suspicion of being a member of the criminal group known as “The Islamic Movement of Turkestan”. He was brought to the police station and on that same day, he died in the office of the chief of the police unit. The city Prosecutor’s Office was informed about the incident. 4.3 The State party also submits that a forensic examination was ordered and carried out from 20 February to 2 March 2010. The examination concluded that the death of Ismonboy Boboev was the result of “mechanical asphyxiation” because Mr. Boboev swallowed his tongue, and not as a result of electric shock. The bruises on Mr. Boboev’s hands and knees were considered as “light bodily injuries”.6 4.4 Given that Ismonboy Boboev’s death occurred at the police station and further to the requests from the relatives of the deceased, the Prosecutor’s Office initiated a criminal investigation under article 104 (murder) of the Criminal Code of Tajikistan. 4.5 Mr. Boboev’s relatives disagreed with the findings of the initial autopsy examination and requested a second examination, which was carried out on 3 April 2010, and results were issued on 6 April 2010. The experts could not definitively ascertain the cause of death, but did not exclude that it was due to electric shock. 4.6 The Prosecutor’s Office also questioned two suspects in the case, police officers A.M. and F.S. Both officers testified that they had no information regarding the cause of Ismonboy Boboev’s death, and that they did not torture him while he was in detention. 4.7 The criminal investigation was later suspended owing to health issues of the two suspects. On 29 August 2012, the Prosecutor General’s Office reopened the criminal investigation and referred it to the Prosecutor’s Office of Sughd Region. The Prosecutor’s Office could not reconcile the differences in the two autopsy reports and considered the “question of appointing a comprehensive criminal forensics examination”.7 4.8 The State party further submits that the Prosecutor’s Office had also considered “additional investigative actions”.8 Given the foregoing, the investigation remains open and torture has not been established as the cause of Ismonboy Boboev’s death. The initial delay in the investigation process was owing to the “non-obviousness of the circumstances of the incident”, “absence of witnesses” and the “necessity to gather appropriate evidence”. 4.9 The State party claims that the author did not exhaust all available domestic remedies and the communication must be considered inadmissible. 4.10 The State party denies the author’s allegations that he did not have access to the results of the criminal investigation into his son’s death. It states that Ismonboy Boboev’s relatives “were informed” about the results of both autopsies. All complaints and requests sent by his relatives to different government agencies were carefully considered and “appropriate responses” were provided. 4.11 Under article 42 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Tajikistan, the victim in the criminal case and his or her representatives cannot have access to the criminal investigation case file while it is ongoing. Access can only be granted after the investigation is completed. That was confirmed by the Constitutional Court of Tajikistan. 6 7 8 4 The State party does not provide any further information regarding these injuries. The State party does not provide any further information on the examination. No further information is provided.