CAT/C/47/D/353/2008 Further comments by the complainant 7.1 On 11 May 2009, the complainant contested the State party’s submission. He stated that the witnesses referred to by the State party were officers of the Solomyanskiy Police Department, acting under the orders of the Kyiv Prosecutor’s Office, which was investigating his father’s murder. He reiterates that after seven days of detention for the administrative offence, before he could leave the premises of the Solomyanskiy Police Department he was detained again for 72 hours as a suspect in the murder of his father. He claims that the police officers were in his district conducting an investigation into his father’s case and had instructions to detain him. He claims that if he had been detained merely for the administrative offence, as stated by the State party, he should have been kept in the Kyiv temporary detention centre and not transferred to the Solomyanskiy Police Department. 7.2 The complainant claims that there were many other inconsistencies and lies in the statements of the police officers and their collaborator – (the “victim” of the hooliganism offence), which were not thoroughly investigated by the court. 7.3 The complainant submits that, according to the medical report, his injuries were caused during his detention. As a result, he had to go to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with a hypertensive cardiovascular disorder, as indicated in the report of 4 May 2006. Finally, he reiterates his previous submission in relation to the exhaustion of remedies concerning his torture claims. 7.4 On 6 July 2009, the complainant once again reiterated that no decision had been taken by the Kyiv Prosecutor’s Office in relation to his case, although under the law it should have responded within three days. He submits that he did not appeal the decision of the District Prosecutor’s Office not to open a criminal case to the court because he appealed to the higher Prosecutor’s Office and his appeal could not be considered by two bodies at the same time. 7.5 On 26 October 2011, the complainant submitted that his further appeals in 2010 and 2011 to the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Kyiv Prosecutor’s Office were dismissed. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering a claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 8.2 The Committee notes the State party’s claim that the complainant has not exhausted domestic remedies as his complaint is still pending with the Kyiv Prosecutor’s Office. The complainant contested the claim, stating that his appeal had been pending several years and, therefore, the procedure had been unreasonably prolonged. The Committee notes that States parties are required to proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation whenever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed. The Committee considers that significant time has elapsed since the complainant filed his appeal. In these circumstances, the Committee concludes that the exhaustion of domestic remedies has been unreasonably prolonged and that it is not precluded by the requirements of article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, from considering the communication. 8.3 With the other admissibility requirements having been met, the Committee declares the communication admissible. 5