CCPR/C/118/D/2127/2011 3.3 The author further claims that the State party failed to take measures to protect his father from torture and from arbitrary deprivation of life, in violation of articles 6 (1) and 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant. The State party also failed to conduct a prompt, impartial, thorough and effective investigation of the circumstances leading to the death in custody of the author’s father, in violation of articles 6 (1) and 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3). 3.4 Furthermore, the State party failed to provide the author with access to effective remedies for the torture and death of his father, including compensation and adequate reparation, in violation of articles 6 (1) and 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant. 3.5 The author claims that the authorities detained his father and subsequently tortured and killed him in response to his civic and political activism and expression of views critical of the Government. He was not detained for any legitimate purpose and the detention was therefore arbitrary and in violation of article 9 (1) of the Covenant. His subsequent mistreatment and death also violated his freedom of expression under article 19 of the Covenant. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 12 March 2013, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits. Regarding the facts, the State party submits that Mr. Akunov was placed in a lock-up ward of the Naryn city Department of Internal Affairs at midnight on 15 April 2017 for having committed an administrative offence. Left unattended by guards, he committed suicide by hanging himself for an unknown reason. A criminal case was initiated under article 316 (2) of the Criminal Code and subsequently criminal proceedings were instituted against two officers of the Department of Internal Affairs, B.K. and B.Zh. On 4 April 2008, the Naryn city court acquitted B.Zh. under article 316 (2) for lack of corpus delicti in his actions and convicted and sentenced B.K. under the same provision to 3 years’ imprisonment. Pursuant to article 63 of the Criminal Code, it suspended the sentence with a probation for a period of one year. On 7 May 2008, the acquittal of B.Zh. was upheld by the Judicial Board on Criminal Cases and Administrative Offences of the Naryn regional court and on 2 September 2008, by the Judicial Board on Criminal Cases and Administrative Offences of the Supreme Court. The State party adds that, pursuant to article 96 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is the highest body of judicial power in respect of civil, criminal, administrative and other cases; it revises the rulings of local courts upon appeal by the participants in the judicial process, in accordance with procedures established by law. Under article 382 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, rulings and resolutions of the Judicial Board on Criminal Cases and Administrative Offences of the Supreme Court are final and not subject to appeal. 4.2 Under article 384 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a sentence, ruling or resolution of the court that becomes amenable to execution can be annulled and the case proceedings reopened owing to newly discovered circumstances. Pursuant to article 387 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Judicial Board on Criminal Cases and Administrative Offences of the Supreme Court re-examined Mr. Akunov’s case, based on the report submitted by prosecutor N.D. On 7 October 2010, the Board decided to set aside the report of prosecutor N.D., since the conclusions thereof did not correspond to any grounds for reopening the proceedings. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 14 May 2013, the author submitted that the State party’s observations did not address the evidence or violations set out in the present communication, and did not dispute the admissibility thereof. Rather, they repeat the assertion that Mr. Akunov committed 8