CCPR/C/120/D/2173/2012 he has been submitting complaints to the Prosecutor’s Office and all have been either ignored or rejected. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the author failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies owing to the fact that there is an ongoing investigation into the allegations of torture resulting in death. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that the State party “cannot avoid the Human Rights Committee’s review of a communication merely by claiming an ongoing investigation”11 and without providing any details of the ongoing investigation, its results or prospects and estimated date of completion. Under the present circumstances and considering that seven years have passed since Ismonboy Boboev’s death, the Committee considers that domestic remedies have been unreasonably prolonged. 12 The Committee accordingly finds that article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol does not preclude it from considering the communication. 8.4 In the Committee’s view, for the purposes of admissibility, the author has sufficiently substantiated his claims under articles 6 (1) and 7, separately and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant with regard to his and his son’s rights, and in relation to access to information contained in the investigation file. It therefore declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information submitted by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that his son died as a result of the illtreatment and torture he suffered in police custody. The Committee also notes that two autopsies were performed and the second autopsy, dated 6 April 2010, indicated that the cause of death could have been an electric shock. The State party denies those allegations, without providing an alternative plausible explanation of the circumstances of Ismonboy Boboev’s death or explaining the so-called “light bodily injuries” or supporting its position with proper documentary evidence. The Committee observes that the State party failed to furnish it with any results of the investigation into Mr. Boboev’s death. For example, the State party claims to have questioned witnesses, including two suspects, but has not provided the results of the questioning. It is also not clear to the Committee whether the State party’s authorities questioned the author of the present communication, who witnessed his son’s body bearing multiple signs of torture. 9.3 The Committee further notes the author’s claim that the use of ill-treatment and torture on his son lead to the arbitrary deprivation of his son’s life and his reference to the Committee’s general comment No. 6 on the right to life. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which, States parties, by arresting and detaining individuals, 11 12 6 See communication No. 1820/2008, Krasovskaya and Krasovskaya v. Belarus, Views adopted on 26 March 2012, para. 7.4. See, inter alia, communications No. 1560/2007, Marcellana and Gumanoy v. Philippines, Views adopted on 30 October 2008, para. 6.2; No. 1250/2004, Rajapakse v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 14 July 2006, paras. 6.1-6.2; and No. 992/2001, Bousroual v. Algeria, Views adopted on 30 March 2006, para. 8.3.