CCPR/C/130/D/3000/2017 to the forensic medical reports describing his injuries. The State party notes that the author did not lodge a complaint with the prosecutor’s office until 6 January 2011, 10 days after allegedly being subjected to ill-treatment. The State also notes that, according to the logbook of the office of the State Committee on National Security, the author and his brother were brought to the office on 29 December 2010 at 9.20 a.m. and the author was released at 9.50 a.m. Those facts cast doubts on the author’s allegations. 4.3 Numerous checks carried out by the military prosecutor’s office resulted in decisions not to open a criminal case because of the absence of corpus delicti. The decisions were adopted on 14 February and 2 December 2011, 1 February, 13 April, 18 July and 14 November 2012 and 4 January and 1 February 2013. The last such decision was adopted on 3 September 2013. The author’s appeal against that decision was rejected and the decision was found lawful by the Bishkek Garrison Court on 17 September 2013, by the Military Court on 11 October 2013 and by the Supreme Court on 4 December 2013. 4.4 By note verbale of 18 September 2018, the State party reiterated its observations, noting that the decision of the Military Court dated 11 October 2013 could be reviewed by the Supreme Court under supervisory review proceedings and the author had thus failed to exhaust domestic remedies. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 20 March 2018, the author provided comments on the State party’s observations. Regarding the delay in submitting his complaint of ill-treatment to the authorities, he claims that he was afraid and that officers of the State Committee on National Security had made him sign a document to the effect that he had no complaints. He submitted his initial complaint to the Prosecutor General on 4 January, and not on 6 January 2011, as noted by the State party. Furthermore, the positive obligations of a State include the obligation to carry out an independent, prompt and thorough investigation, regardless of the timing of the victim’s complaint. The prosecutor’s office did not take into account the conclusion drawn in the forensic reports that the burns, contusions and abrasion marks on the author’s back could have been inflicted at the time he alleged. In fact, the State party never explained the origin of the author’s injuries. 5.2 The prosecutor’s office never questioned the five witnesses indicated by the author, who were his neighbours and could confirm that he had returned home two days after being arrested, nor did the authorities take into account the author’s request to question a human rights defender, whom he had contacted on 4 January 2011. The State party, despite having the possibility to carry out investigations, did not identify and locate witnesses or ask the author about their whereabouts. 5.3 The officers who arrested and brought the author to the office of the State Committee on National Security remain unidentified. The authorities did not establish which measures of restraint had been used during the author’s arrest. The author named two State Committee officers who had participated in his questioning and asked to have a confrontation with them. He also asked the prosecutor’s office to request from the State Committee on National Security a list of names of the officers who had interrogated him. Those and other requests have been left unanswered. The prosecutor’s office limited itself to a preliminary inquiry and never launched a full-fledged investigation into the author’s complaints. 5.4 The first decision not to open a criminal investigation, dated 14 February 2011, was only communicated to the author four months later, on 3 June 2011. The medical expert’s report, No. 12 of 10 January 2011 (see para. 2.4), was never communicated to him. 5.5 The decisions not to open a criminal case contain contradictions. In the decision of 14 February 2011, the prosecutor refers to an internal State Committee inquiry according to which the author had resisted arrest, which prompted the use of force by the arresting officers (see para. 2.6). In later decisions, the prosecutors indicate that, according to officers who had carried out a search in the author’s house and arrested him, the author offered no resistance and the reason for his detention was to verify his identity (see para. 2.9). 5