CAT/C/47/D/353/2008 Criminal Code. On 9 July 2003, during the investigation of this criminal case, the same Prosecutor’s Office initiated a criminal investigation against the complainant and his mother under the same section of the Criminal Code. On that date, both the complainant and his mother were detained for 10 days under the decision of the Solomyanskiy City Court. On 18 July 2003, they were released on the condition that they would not leave the country. As the involvement of the complainant and his mother could not be proven, the case was closed on 21 July 2003. 4.2 On 17 February 2006, the police detained the complainant for minor hooliganism. The case was examined the same day by the Svyatoshinskiy District Court, which sentenced the complainant to seven days of detention under section 173 of the Administrative Code. 4.3 After his release from detention on 24 February 2006, the complainant was again detained, but this time as a suspect in the murder of his father. On 27 February 2006, he was released. On 28 February 2006, the complainant asked for a medical examination, which showed that he had light injuries. He complained to the Prosecutor’s Office about physical and psychological pressure by the police officers during both his detentions. However, the investigation by the Ministry of the Interior and the Prosecutor’s Office did not confirm such claims. The Supreme Court found the complainant’s detention in relation to hooliganism lawful and decided to uphold the decision of the Svyatoshinskiy District Court. 4.4 The State party submits that as a result of the complainant’s appeals the decision on his detention was examined by the lower court several times. He also complained to the District Prosecutor’s Office regarding torture, but on 26 July 2006, the Prosecutor’s Office refused to open a criminal case against police officers. This decision was appealed to the higher Prosecutor’s Office. The appeal is pending, thus the complainant has not exhausted domestic remedies. Complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5. On 19 January 2009, the complainant reiterated the facts from his initial submission and claimed that he exhausted all available domestic remedies in relation to his detention. He claims that there were seven decisions by the Ukrainian courts, all of which had dismissed his claims. Four months after his initial complaint of torture, his case was sent to the Kyiv Solomyanskiy District Prosecutor’s Office in July 2006, which refused to open a criminal case against police officers. He appealed the decision to the Kyiv Prosecutor’s Office on 26 July 2006, but has not received any answer since then. Therefore, he claims that the period of exhaustion is unreasonably prolonged and cannot bring effective remedy, as it will result in the return of the case to the Prosecutor’s Office. Additional observations by the State party 6.1 On 20 March 2009, the State party submitted that there was no link between the facts established by medical examination on 28 February 2006, the report of the medical clinic of the Ministry of Interior of 4 May 2006 and the possible use of torture against the complainant. Testimonies given by witnesses and the victim confirm his guilt regarding the administrative offence. The complainant has not used his constitutional right to complain before a court against the use of torture by the police. 6.2 On 27 May 2009, the State party cited domestic legislation in relation to the appeal procedure, which sets the deadline of seven days to appeal the decision of the Prosecutor’s Office. 4