CCPR/C/120/D/2173/2012 Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 5.1 On 4 November 2013 and 3 July 2014, the author provided his comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and merits. Specifically with regard to the State party’s argument that the communication should be considered inadmissible, the author submits that he has exhausted all domestic remedies. 5.2 In addition to complaints to the Prosecutor’s Office, which were submitted on 7 and 27 July 2012, the author also submitted a complaint to the Sughd Regional Court on 27 March 2013, claiming that the suspension of the investigation into the allegations of torture of his son was unlawful. On 10 April 2013, the Sughd Regional Court agreed with the author and ordered the Prosecutor’s Office to reopen the investigation. The cassation panel of the Sughd Regional Court and the Supreme Court of Tajikistan both affirmed that decision. Despite that decision on the part of the courts, the Prosecutor’s Office did not conduct any investigative actions. 5.3 The author reiterates that he filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court of Tajikistan regarding the denial of his right to access materials of the criminal investigation. 5.4 As for the merits of the communication, the author contends that the State party failed to provide any information that would explain Ismonboy Boboev’s death. The State party claims that the author’s son was detained on suspicion of being a member of the “Islamic Movement of Turkestan”. However, to date, neither the author nor his representatives have received a single piece of evidence confirming that his son was a member of this extremist group or that he had committed any crimes. 5.5 The author submits that the results of the autopsy dated 6 April 2010 indicate that Ismonboy Boboev’s death could have occurred as a result of an electric shock. 5.6 The State party’s submission also shows that the authorities were not interested in conducting a prompt, impartial and effective investigation of the torture allegations made by the author. The authorities failed to take any investigative actions prior to the submission of the complaint to the Committee as well as and after the submission of the complaint, despite numerous requests from the author. Additional submissions by the parties By the State party 6.1 On 19 September 2014,9 the State party reiterated its position regarding the present communication, emphasizing that it had done everything to investigate the circumstances of Ismonboy Boboev’s death. The investigators questioned all relevant witnesses, including two police officers, A.M. and F.S., who had arrested him, and both denied involvement in his death. 6.2 It confirmed that the investigation had been suspended and reopened several times, but the suspensions were owing to the health issues 10 of the two suspects in the case. On 6 February 2014, the investigation was reopened and remains open to this day. As submitted previously, the relatives of the deceased were kept informed of developments in the investigation. By the author 7.1 The author submitted that the investigation could not be postponed indefinitely and still be considered effective. He drew the Committee’s attention to the fact that the investigation had been suspended three times, each time, owing to “health issues” of the suspects. 7.2 The author submitted that he has requested access to the case file of the investigation into his allegations that his son had been tortured but, to date, his requests have been rejected. He stated that, from 2010 until the date of the present comments to the Committee, 9 10 The State party made another submission on 15 March 2016, in which it reiterated its initial position. The State party does not provide any explanation regarding these “health issues”. 5