CAT/C/48/D/433/2010 the DCECC decision to the Regional Prosecutor’s Office, which reversed the DCECC decision on 24 September 2007 and referred the case back for further examination. 2.13 On 3 December 2007, the Regional Department of Internal Affairs reported on its investigation, stating that a number of flagrant violations of laws and regulations had been found, that 10 police officers had been removed from their positions and that a follow-up investigation was being conducted. On 1 February 2008, DCECC refused to initiate criminal proceedings on grounds that it was not possible to prove involvement of the police officers. On 19 March 2008, the Regional Prosecutor’s Office upheld the DCECC decision. A further appeal to the Second Court of the City of Kostanai (City Court) was rejected on 25 March 2008. On 20 May 2008, the complainant further requested the General Prosecutor’s Office to initiate a criminal investigation in view of deficiencies of the DCECC investigation;5 the request was rejected on 11 June 2008. As the City Court had already rejected the appeal, no further challenge to this decision was made. 2.14 The complainant claims that he has exhausted all domestic remedies with numerous complaints to the prosecution authorities and to the court, including four appeals against the refusal to start a criminal investigation. Although the decision of the City Court suggested that there was a further appeal to the Regional Court, that appeal was not effective in practice. Article 109 (9) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Kazakhstan allows for only three days in which to appeal a decision of the City Court to the Regional Court, counted from the date of the decision. However, the lawyer received the decision only after the three-day period for appeal had expired. 2.15 In addition, there is a real risk of threats and violence against himself and his family if he were to continue his complaint domestically, in view of the threats he has already received in connection with his complaint. Furthermore, the procedure has now become unreasonably delayed such that there is no duty to pursue it further. Given the gravity of the violations against him, only a criminal investigation and prosecution would constitute an effective remedy. The failure of the State party to open a criminal investigation has hindered his ability to invoke any other available remedy. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that the treatment inflicted upon him by police amounted to torture, in violation of article 1. Although the acts of torture complained of preceded the entry into force of the Convention, the violation has a continuous nature. Recalling the Committee’s jurisprudence,6 he claims that the violation has since been affirmed by the State party by act or clear implication, due to its willful failure to acknowledge responsibility for the torture, to make any changes to the legal system that permitted the torture and its continuing failure to conduct an adequate investigation. In addition, he continues to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the torture, which 5 6 The complainant’s lawyer argued that: (a) the examination of the complaint was superficial and biased; (b) the forensic medical examination did not appear to consider the complainant’s subsequent outpatient care; (c) even if the complainant’s injuries were “light”, that did not rule out the possibility that he had been tortured; (d) the investigation ignored important contradictions in police officers’ testimony; (e) two police officers confirmed that the complainant had been detained and questioned, as his interrogation was recorded at the Regional Department of Internal Affairs on 28 March 2007 and his wife’s visit is recorded in the admission log; (f) the investigation failed to exhaust all avenues to identify the persons who inflicted the complainant’s injuries. In particular, the police did not interview: the complainant’s co-workers; V.P., who notified the complainant’s wife that their son had been detained; the medical personnel at the City Hospital where the complainant was treated and other patients in his ward who observed police officers visiting the complainant. Communication No. 247/2004, A.A. v. Azerbaijan, inadmissibility decision adopted on 25 November 2005. 5