CCPR/C/130/D/3000/2017 5.6 The author repeats his claim that no charges were brought against him at the time of the arrest, the arrest was not recorded and his detention therefore violated article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant. 5.7 He submits that he has sufficiently substantiated his claims and that it is now up to the State party to open a criminal case, carry out an investigation and prove that no ill-treatment took place. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 As required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s claim that the author has not exhausted all available effective domestic remedies because he did not seek a supervisory review by the Supreme Court of the decision of the Military Court of 11 October 2013. The Committee observes that, in its initial observations dated 17 January 2018, the State party indicates that the decision mentioned was subject to a review by the Supreme Court, which rejected the author’s appeal on 4 December 2013. The Committee is thus satisfied that the author has indeed exhausted all domestic remedies available to him. Accordingly, it considers that it is not precluded by virtue of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the present communication. 6.4 The Committee notes the author’s claim that an attempt by officers of the State Committee on National Security to extract a confession by force violates article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant. The Committee observes however that the article applies to testimonies and confessions in the determination of any criminal charges brought against a person. Since no criminal charges were brought against the author in the present case, the claim falls outside of the scope of article 14 (3) (g) and is inadmissible under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 In the Committee’s view, the author has sufficiently substantiated his claims raising issues under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a), and article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, it declares those parts of the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim under article 7 of the Covenant that he was apprehended and detained in the office of the State Committee on National Security from 27 December to 29 December 2010 and that there he was beaten up and tortured by State Committee officers on 27 December 2010 in an attempt to obtain his forced confession to a crime. In that regard, the Committee notes that the author provides not only a detailed account of the different types of torture to which he was subjected, but also pictures taken by the Kylym Shamy human rights centre in Bishkek and a copy of a forensic medical report, No. 292, issued by the Scientific Research Centre for Traumatology and Orthopaedics in Bishkek, confirming his injuries and the possible time of their occurrence, which coincides with his detention in the State Security office (see para. 2.4). The Committee also notes that the Bishkek Garrison Military Court, in its decision of 2 September 2011, found that the period of the author’s detention in the office of the State Committee on National Security, from 27 to 29 December 2010, could have been confirmed by a number of witnesses whom the investigator failed to interview (see para. 2.7) and a later investigation led by the State party’s authorities indeed confirmed that the author was detained, as he claims, on 27 December 2010 (see para. 2.9). The Committee observes, in that respect, that the State party 6