CCPR/C/118/D/2127/2011 suicide, the very assumption on which the investigation was based, list a few of the decisions taken during that investigation, and argue that the law in Kyrgyzstan does not allow the investigation to be reopened. None of that information undermines the arguments set out in the communication. The author therefore requests that the Committee proceed to consider it on the merits and find that the State party is responsible for the violations set out in his initial submission. 5.2 The communication sets out in detail why the investigation was inadequate and ineffective. However, the State party’s observations do not address those inadequacies in any way. For example, they do not provide any explanation for the multiple injuries which the examination of Mr. Akunov’s body revealed, including numerous abrasions and bruises to his torso (especially around the kidneys), shoulders, elbows, knees, fingers and toes, as well as haemorrhaging in his brain, chest cavity and lungs. They also do not provide any response to concerns, such as the fact that the investigators failed to secure the scene of Mr. Akunov’s death, ignored a message written in blood on the wall of his cell, 16 discounted the testimony of the witnesses who saw the police beating Mr. Akunov and failed to investigate the numerous irregularities in the procedure for his detention. As explained in the initial submission, the trial of the two officers was wholly inadequate: it was based on an ineffective investigation, charges were brought not for the torture or killing of Mr. Akunov, but only for negligence in failing to supervise him and allegedly allowing him to hang himself, and even then, one officer was acquitted while the other was given a suspended sentence. No officers have been held responsible for beating Mr. Akunov or for his death. The State party’s response is therefore insufficient given the seriousness of the allegations. 5.3 As to the reopening of the investigation, the author submits that the fact that an investigation was reopened and then closed without making any progress in identifying those responsible for the beating and death of Mr. Akunov does not indicate a thorough or effective investigation. Furthermore, the Supreme Court refused to continue the renewed investigation and again closed the case, despite recognizing that various questions had still not been resolved, including the allegation that Mr. Akunov wrote the alleged explanatory statement under pressure (see para. 2.11), and how and where Mr. Akunov received his injuries. That only highlights the ineffective nature of the investigation. 5.4 Aside from its brief recitation of a handful of steps from the investigation, the State party’s observations do not address any of the other violations raised in the communication. Despite acknowledging that Mr. Akunov died in police custody, they do not provide any substantiated explanation for his death, based on a “thorough, prompt and impartial investigation” capable of rebutting the prima facie presumption that he died as a result of an arbitrary killing.17 They do not address the injuries, which were inflicted on Mr. Akunov while in custody, or their complete failure to implement safeguards which could have protected him from ill-treatment and ultimately the arbitrary deprivation of his life. The observations effectively confirm that the State party has not provided Mr. Akunov’s family with an effective redress. Finally, the observations do not address the arguments and evidence which demonstrate that Mr. Akunov was arbitrarily detained, tortured and killed in response to his civic and political activism and expression of views critical of the Government. 5.5 Given the State party’s failure to address the claims set out in the communication, the author requests the Committee to: (a) Make a finding that the State party is responsible for the death and torture or inhuman and degrading treatment of his father, under articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant; 16 17 The inscription, written in the Kyrgyz language, read: “This day will pass”. See, communication No. 1225/2003, Eshonov v. Uzbekistan, Views adopted on 22 July 2010, para. 9.2. 9