CAT/C/48/D/433/2010 the psychiatric examination was held on 18 January 2011. On 2 February 2011, the complainant’s counsel was allowed to see the psychiatric report, but was not given a copy. 5.3 In the course of the renewed investigation, the complainant was questioned in the presence of a lawyer on at least four occasions: on 19 January, 21 January, 25 January and 2 February 2011. Prior to 19 January 2011, he was questioned without a lawyer. During questioning on 19 January 2011, he gave a detailed statement about the torture to which he had been subjected, consistent with his earlier statements. He again described the physical injuries that he had sustained and the treatment he had suffered. 5.4 The legal representatives further recall the threats that were made against the complainant in 2007 and state that the circumstances of the renewed investigation have led to renewed intimidation. In late January 2011, the complainant’s wife informed the Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and the Rule of Law that the family had received a call from a prosecutor named A.K. threatening to reopen the murder case that was the cause of the initial arrest and torture of the complainant. The prosecutor confirmed to the Bureau during a phone conversation that he had called the family in an attempt to ensure that they give evidence. When asked to refrain from putting pressure on the family, he claimed that he was conducting a thorough investigation. The complainant told a representative of the Bureau on several occasions that his family, in particular his wife, were very “tired” of his complaints, they want to “forget everything and just live”. He also mentioned on 18 February 2011 that his family was putting pressure on him to withdraw his complaint. He repeated several times that his wife was very worried about possible retaliation against their family. 5.5 On 21 February 2011, the prosecutor informed the Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and the Rule of Law that the renewed investigation had been terminated in accordance with article 37 of the Criminal Procedure Code (circumstances excluding criminal investigation) and that, on 5 February 2011, the complainant refused the services of his lawyer, stating that he had no claims against the police. 5.6 The complainant’s representatives claim that the renewed investigation lacks independence, is delayed, is not effective and has not resulted in any criminal prosecutions, and refer to the Committee’s jurisprudence that an investigation must be commenced promptly and conducted expeditiously. 8 9 In this case, the domestic investigation was suspended on 5 September 2007. By the time the investigation was reopened, almost four years had passed. The restarting of the investigation after the lapse of three years did not constitute an effective investigation. 5.7 The primary focus of the reopened investigation appeared to be the repeated interrogations of the complainant and his family, including a compulsory psychiatric evaluation of him against his will and forcing him to engage in confrontations with the police officers. No charges have been brought against any of the officers responsible for the torture and the investigation has again been closed. 5.8 The complainant’s representatives welcome the general measures to combat torture outlined by the State party, but note that the State party has not explained how any of these new measures relate to the complainant’s case. These measures are not sufficient to remedy his complaint in the absence of proper reparations, which would have to include recognition of responsibility for the violations, a proper investigation, compensation and rehabilitation. Only the creation of an independent commission of inquiry, having all the characteristics stipulated in chapter III of the Manual on Effective Investigation and Documentation of 8 9 Communication No. 59/1996, Blanco Abad v. Spain, Views adopted on 14 May 1998, para. 8.7. Committee against Torture, concluding observations on Kazakhstan, CAT/C/KAZ/CO/2, para. 24. 7