CCPR/C/119/D/2146/2012 appeal was rejected by the judicial panel for criminal cases of the Astana Regional Court. The author did not submit an appeal under the supervisory review procedure to the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan. 4.7 The State party further submits that the author’s aunt, S.M.M., submitted a complaint to the Prosecutor General’s Office on behalf of the author. On 7 December 2010 and 24 August 2011, the Prosecutor General refused to initiate a supervisory review request with the Supreme Court. The author himself never submitted such a request. 4.8 Regarding the author’s allegations of a lack of medical assistance, the State party submits that the author received medical help whenever it was requested. The author uses a wheelchair, but otherwise his health was assessed as “satisfactory”. The State party draws the attention of the Committee to the fact that the author submitted 19 complaints to various government agencies. In these complaints, he disagrees with various aspects of his criminal prosecution and with the court verdict. The author, however, never complained about the conditions of his detention. 4.9 Currently, the author is being held in Prison No. 166/4 in Atbasar, where he has been disciplined twice for various violations of prison rules and regulations. 4.10 Commenting on the author’s allegations regarding a perceived threat if he submits a complaint to the Committee, the State party submits that such claims are invented by the author purely so that he can obviate the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies that the Committee imposes. The author therefore failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies, and his submission should be declared inadmissible. 4.11 On the merits, the State party submits that the prosecutor’s office, as prescribed by law, forwarded the author’s complaints to the court. The court examined these complaints during hearings and considered them to be “unfounded”. 4 4.12 On 28 December 2009, the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan issued instruction No. 7, which obliges courts to task the prosecutor with conducting an examination of claims of “illegal methods of investigation”. This instruction, therefore, is not applicable to the author’s allegations, since the author’s verdict was announced before adoption of this instrument. 4.13 As mentioned earlier, the author also complains about a lack of access to medical assistance, which, he claims, was continuing as of the date of the submission of the complaint. On the date of his arrival at the prison on 27 February 2010, the author was registered as a person with a disability. On 27 March 2010, he was brought to Central Clinic No. 162/2 and given necessary medical care. From 17 June 2010 to 9 September 2010, he was sent to National Hospital No. 156/15. The doctors in the hospital raised the question of performing surgery, 5 but it was ultimately decided that such surgery was not needed and would be “ineffective” if performed. 4.14 The State party further denies allegations of torture and mistreatment. The Constitution explicitly prohibits torture. The Criminal Code of Kazakhstan also contains article 141-1, which prohibits torture.6 A person convicted for this crime could be sentenced to 5 to 10 years’ imprisonment. Furthermore, the Prosecutor General’s Office adopted an instruction, dated 2 February 2010, that creates an obligation to investigate allegations of torture. Where such claims are found to be credible, the prosecutor’s office must bring criminal charges. As a result, the number of complaints of torture has increased during recent years.7 4 5 6 7 The State party provides no further details on the courts’ consideration of the author’s complaints. The State party does not provide any specific details on the type of surgery or why it was considered. The State party also submits that, on 21 November 2008, it ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and, from the end of 2012, created a national preventive mechanism. The representatives of the national preventive mechanism conducted 551 visits from 2010 to 2012. According to the statistics provided by the State party, 14 such complaints were registered in 2009, 36 in 2010, 52 in 2011, and 298 in the first nine months of 2012. From 2009 to 2012, 36 torture-related charges were brought. 5