CAT/C/48/D/433/2010 Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol, paras. 2, 85 and 86), with full powers to summon witnesses and recommend a criminal prosecution, will be sufficient to remedy the violation of the Convention. 5.9 In response to the complaint to the Committee, the State party questioned the complainant’s mental health and ordered a psychiatric evaluation. The renewed investigation has the characteristics of an attempt to intimidate the complainant into withdrawing his petition, a practice widely used in Kazakhstan.10 Any such intimidation hinders the right of individual petition, as established in articles 13 and 22 of the Convention. By making the declaration under article 22 of the Convention in 2008, Kazakhstan implicitly undertook not to interfere with the right of individuals to communicate with the Committee, as to do so would render the right which it had recognized ineffective in practice. 5.10 Legal representatives are concerned about the request by the prosecutor to subject the complainant to psychiatric evaluation, since the purpose was not to establish the effect of torture but to establish the complainant’s mental state “since there was a doubt about his ability to correctly perceive the circumstances relevant to the case”. 11 The purpose of the evaluation thus appears to have been to discredit or intimidate the complainant. 5.11 In the light of the above, the State party has violated the complainant’s rights under articles 1, 2, 12, 13, and 14, of the Convention. Complainant’s further submission 6. In March 2011, the complainant provided the Committee with a notarized letter in Russian (with a copy to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan), dated 18 February 2011 and accompanied by an English translation, by which he requested the withdrawal of the complaint submitted on his behalf on 22 April 2010, since he has not personally prepared or signed any submission, it having been prepared by the Open Society Justice Initiative and the Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and the Rule of Law on the basis of his power of attorney.12 He further stated that the complaints against the police officers were written “in a temper, in a painful nervous condition” and that he had no claims against them.13 State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 7.1 On 14 April and 6 May 2011, the State party provided further observations. It submits that, on 27 March 2007, the complainant and his two stepsons were suspected of 10 11 12 13 8 Reference to the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, on his mission to Kazakhstan, A/HRC/13/39/Add.3. The pattern and practice of intimidation of those who make complaints of torture represent a particular problem in Kazakhstan: “Many of the detainees interviewed by the Special Rapporteur indicated that they had been threatened with further charges, longer imprisonment and, in some cases, sexual violence by fellow inmates in order to make them withdraw complaints or sign declarations that they did not have any complaints or statements that they had sustained injuries while resisting arrest … Such behaviour, besides going counter to international standards, renders any complaints system meaningless and should be addressed in a determined manner.” (para. 59); “it appears that most detainees refrain from filing complaints because they do not trust the system or are afraid of reprisals” (para. 51), and that detainees had suffered intimidation in preparation for his visit (paras. 22 and 73). As a result, he identified a need for the State to take measures to “protect complainants against reprisals” (para. 80 (c)). Decision of 8 January 2011 ordering a psychiatric examination (available on file). See footnote 2 above. The notarized letter is dated 18 February 2011 and is signed by the complainant.