CCPR/C/119/D/2146/2012 the appeal is filed by the prosecution. The author’s appeal dated 30 November 2009 was heard in the presence of the author’s lawyer. 4.24 The State party further submits that, starting from 1 July 2012, 14 appellants also have an opportunity to file a cassation appeal. Regular appeals are brought before the verdict comes into force and cassation appeals can be brought after the verdict comes into force. Both appeals have to be exhausted before the author can submit a supervisory review request to the Supreme Court. Based on all the information mentioned above, the State party contends that there has been no violation of articles of the Covenant in the author’s case. Additional observations From the author 5.1 On 11 September 2012, 28 March 2013, 20 January, 4 June and 11 September 2014, and 19 February, 20 March, 12 June and 1 December 2015,15 as well as on 15 January, 1 February, 11 April and 6 January 2016, the author submitted additional information. He argues, inter alia, that the State party’s ratione temporis argument is not relevant in this case, since the violations of the articles of the Covenant continued after 30 September 2009 and to the date of submission. 5.2 Regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the author explains that his aunt submitted a supervisory review request to the prosecutor’s office, which was rejected. The author’s brother and his co-defendant, Z.K., submitted a supervisory review request, which was rejected by the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan. 5.3 Regarding the State party’s observations on the merits, the author submits that, instead of conducting investigations into his complaints of torture, the authorities forwarded them to the court. The court did not conduct any investigations, but only questioned three law enforcement officers who denied any wrongdoing. Moreover, on 17 September 2009, during one of the court hearings, the court refused to admit one of the author’s letters of complaint. The judge simply stated that the author should address his complaints to the internal security service of the National Security Committee. 16 5.4 The author contends that his first complaint of torture was submitted during his initial interrogation on 7 February 2009, despite the State party’s arguments to the contrary. To this complaint, the Deputy Prosecutor General simply responded that the facts of torture have not been confirmed. 17 The State party’s authorities ignored numerous complaints about beatings, insufficient food and lack of access to medical assistance. On six different occasions, the authorities refused to initiate a criminal investigation regarding his complaints.18 5.5 The author further submits that he was in de facto detention starting from 9 January 2009, but he was registered with the medical authorities only on 27 February 2010 and was only properly diagnosed on 5 April 2010. This proves that he did not receive appropriate medical care for more than a year. Despite significant medical problems, the author was prescribed analgesics. The author did not complain to doctors in the prison simply because he could not move independently. 5.6 Regarding the State party’s contention about the growing number of investigations into crimes of torture, the author notes that the majority of these investigations do not lead 14 15 16 17 18 In accordance with article 446-1 of the Criminal Procedure Code. At the request of the author alleging that the State party authorities were pressuring him to withdraw his complaint, the Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures, asked the State party to prevent any reprisals against the author, his family, witnesses and representatives as a result of the submission of the communication. The author quotes from a record of court hearings. The author attached the Deputy Prosecutor General’s response dated 7 December 2010. The dates of these decisions: 20 November 2009, 12 January 2010 and 4 July, 25 August and 24 October 2012 (one of the six dates has not been indicated by the author). Additionally, the author contends that he learned about these decisions only in November or December 2012. 7