CCPR/C/119/D/2146/2012 searched his cell. When they didn’t find anything, E.S. threatened to place the author in the solitary confinement unit. On 8 September 2011, the Deputy Head of the prison, A.M., and other officers, came into the author’s cell, started insulting him and said that he “pretends to be a disabled person”, pushed him off his bed, suggesting that he could walk, banged him against the wall and took his belongings, including an electric kettle and space heater. 5.16 The author reiterates that he was tortured to confess guilt and his co-defendants were also tortured to provide information against the author. Once such information was obtained, under duress, the defendants became witnesses. But even as witnesses, they admitted during the court hearings that they had been pressured to testify against the author. G.R., one of the witnesses, testified in court that the law enforcement officers had hung him “head down, electrocuted him, and put a screwdriver in his ear” so he had been obliged to confess. From the State party 6.1 On 10 December 2013 and 8 May, 5 August and 31 December 2014, as well as on 2821 January, 6 May, 31 July and 29 December 2015 and 12 January, 11 March, 19 August and 25 November 2016, the State party reiterated its observations on admissibility and the merits. 6.2 The State party argues that the author failed to exhaust domestic remedies. 22 The author’s brother and co-defendant did file a supervisory review request, but the author was charged with additional crimes, which makes his case different. 6.3 The State party further submits that, as stated in its initial observations, the author was provided with all necessary medical care. His torture claims were examined and it was ascertained that there had been no mistreatment of the author or the witnesses. 6.4 The State party submits that, on 23 September 2011, the Department against Economic Crimes and Corruption received a complaint from the author. The author claimed that, on 8 September 2011, the Deputy Head of Prison No. 162/4 in the Pavlodar region, A.M., and one of the officers, K.A., had entered the author’s cell and searched it and, in the process, “abused the author both morally and physically”. 23 K.A. was questioned regarding this alleged incident. He confirmed that the author’s cell was indeed searched, and “prohibited items” were discovered; no physical or other forms of pressure were used against the author. The authorities therefore refused to initiate a criminal investigation. 6.5 On 11 May 2014, the author was visited by a representative from the prosecutor’s office and representatives of the national preventive mechanism. The author, who was at the time held in Prison No. 166/18, was examined and it was ascertained that he was receiving proper medical care. 24 On 21 April 2014, the author became aggressive and refused to return to his cell. The nurse who was assigned to him, P.U., filed a complaint against the author claiming that he had insulted her. The authorities of Prison No. 166/18 provided explanations and it transpires from these documents that the author was never pressured or physically threatened or abused. 6.6 In August 2014, the author applied for early release. On 26 September 2014, the Akmola Region Criminal Court rejected his request. 25 6.7 The State party further contends that the author was examined not only by the penitentiary authorities, but also private clinics, in June and September 2014. On several dates, such as from 2 to 13 April 2013, from 8 to 14 May 2014 and on 15 December 2015, he refused to undergo medical examination or treatment. 21 22 23 24 25 The State party’s submission dated 28 January 2015 is identical to the one dated 5 August 2014. The State party acknowledges that two supervisory appeals were filed by the author’s aunt, but not by the author himself. The State party provides no further details on this incident. The State party also submits that, on 16 May 2013, the author was visited by representatives of several non-governmental organizations and they received no complaints from the author. The author appealed this decision, but his appeal was denied on 10 December 2014 by an appeals court and on 24 February 2015 by a cassation appeals court. The State party claims that the seriousness of the crimes committed by the author make him ineligible for application of new articles 6 and 14 of the Criminal Code of Kazakhstan (on “humanization”). 9