CCPR/C/128/D/2707/2015 5.4 The author wrote to several newspapers calling upon all witnesses of the incident to testify. In the morning after the tragedy, police officers went into the courtyard of the house where the incident had occurred and warned all witnesses to remain silent. A young man who was taking photographs of the incident with his mobile telephone was threatened and told not to make them public and he was never seen again. After numerous requests by the author and her counsel, only one witness (H., a woman bystander in the yard) was questioned; she testified that the author’s son was neither resisting nor insulting the police officers. However, those statements were disregarded. 5.5 The author reiterates that the State party’s allegations that her son had been under the influence of alcohol and in violation of public order laws and had used obscene language against the police officers are re-victimizing and deeply hurtful. Her son, who was raised in the family tradition of patriotism and who was a caring family man and an intellectual, is portrayed by the State party as a hooligan, drunkard and troublemaker. Moreover, not only was the testimony of H. ignored in the investigation, but the investigators also never sought to take into account her son’s character, which they could have discovered by interviewing his employer and colleagues, his neighbours, his trainer, other friends and acquaintances. All these sources would have provided positive feedback about the author’s son. 5.6 The author also contests the State party’s explanation that the external injuries to her son were unrelated to his death. On 28 June 2009, when the body was brought home, it was clear that her son had been subjected to beatings. His body was covered with bruises: bruises on the head and abrasions on the nose, temple and chin. The body was cleaned up by close relatives and a friend of the deceased, who all witnessed numerous bruises on the torso. His entire face was blue and his chin had a cut from a sharp object. A similar cut was visible on his back. His shins and feet showed signs of having been severely beaten. Washed bloodstains were still visible on his clothes. This indicates that the clothes had been washed in order to hide the bloodstains.4 When the author took possession of her son’s clothes after his death, they were humid. The author points out that her son’s blood test was destroyed and it was thus impossible to identify whose blood was on his clothes. 5.7 As regards the State party’s allegation that, according to a study, the author’s son suffered from a heart disease, the author notes that neither information about the date of the study, nor about the persons who carried it out was provided by the State party. The author explains that her son never suffered from a serious heart disease. He was a doctor and a sportsman, and he took good care of his health. For the purpose of the re-examination, the author submitted the results of an examination carried out shortly before her son’s death, which indicated that he had been in good health. The author claims that the beating inflicted on her son by the police officers resulted in an arrhythmic attack that caused her son’s death. 5.8 In light of the foregoing, the author reiterates that the State party violated her son’s rights under articles 6 and 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a), and her rights under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a), of the Covenant. Over a long period of time, she has been seeking to have those responsible held accountable, which has seriously affected her health. She is devastated by the State party’s cynical response and by the distortion of the facts, which have caused her severe emotional distress. Additional submissions by the parties 6.1 In a note verbale dated 2 December 2016, the State party reiterated its initial observations. 6.2 On 4 May 2017, the author noted that, in fact, the State party had repeated its observations of 17 February 2016. Accordingly, the author refers to her initial submission and her comments of 20 April 2016. 6.3 In a note verbale dated 4 August 2017, the State party again reiterated its initial observations. 4 Photographs of the clothes are included in the file. 5