CCPR/C/126/D/2699/2015 however, he explained that he did not know why he was not feeling well and thought that it was because of the use of alcohol (para. 2.14), which is corroborated by the medical record on his admission to the hospital on 23 January 2013 and the testimony of the author on 24 January 2013 to the effect that, having been drunk, he had accepted the suggestion of an individual named K. to incriminate the police officers. In his deposition (para. 6.5), however, K. affirmed that he had not suggested that the author should go to the police, nor had K. witnessed the police putting the author under pressure or inflicting bodily harm on him on 23 January 2013. According to what K. witnessed, the police had not used violence and the author had provided his testimonies voluntarily, in the presence of a lawyer. 9. In court (para. 6.6), the author confirmed that he had not been beaten or subjected to violence during the investigation. During the interrogations, he had never affirmed that he had been beaten in order to elicit a forced confession of guilt. According to the author, the affirmation that K. had beaten him and advised him to write to the police to claim that he had confessed under duress is false. The interrogations of the author were carried out in the presence of a lawyer, but he never spoke to the lawyer about any pressure put on him by the police. 10. On 4 February 2013 (para. 2.1), 15 August 2013 (para. 2.3), 23 November 2013 (paras. 2.4 and 6.7), investigators refused to open a criminal case against the police officers in the absence of a corpus delicti. The officer who recorded the author’s statements on 23 January 2013 was interrogated along with two other officers. All three of them denied having used unlawful methods of interrogation against the author and emphasized the voluntary nature of the author’s depositions. On 24 April 2014, the city court rejected the appeal of the author against this refusal (para. 2.5). 11. The existence of injuries on the author’s body (para. 6.8) as documented by an expert on 5 November 2013 cannot unilaterally lead to a conclusion of the use of unlawful methods of investigation to force the author to confess guilt. The interrogations ended on 22 January 2013 at 4.10 p.m., but the allegations were not made until 24 January 2013. In addition, a number of witnesses confirmed having seen the author with a swollen face on 21 January (that is, before his apprehension by police officers). The State party therefore considered that the author’s argumentation on the use of unlawful methods against him appeared to have been correctly assessed by the courts as constituting a defence strategy and that, accordingly, no violation of any of the author’s rights had occurred in the case (para. 6.11). 12. In the face of such contradictory elements on file (see also para. 4.5), I fail to see how the Committee could reach the conclusion that due weight needed to be given to the author’s allegations of torture and ill-treatment and that the State party had failed to demonstrate satisfactorily that its authorities had addressed the allegations in a meaningful way. I would thus have concluded for a non-violation of the author’s rights under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant. 13. For the same reason, I also fail to see the rationale behind the conclusion of a violation of the author’s rights under article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant for the confessions allegedly obtained under duress. As already stated in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the present opinion, both the author himself and a witness acknowledged that the author’s testimonies had been provided voluntarily and in the presence of a lawyer, and that he had not been beaten or subjected to violence during the investigation. On 7 May 2014 (para. 2.11), the Kstovsk City Court pronounced the author guilty under article 111 (4) of the Criminal Code, pertaining to the intentional infliction of a grave injury resulting in the death of the victim, and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. During the trial, a medical assistant testified that, on 23 January 2013, during her service, she had visited the author’s home with a colleague. She further asserted that the author had complained about a headache and that he was hospitalized with a concussion. Despite this, the appeal court noted that it had been established that the author’s confessions had been given voluntarily and under no coercion, in the presence of a lawyer (footnote 6). 14. On the basis of this information, I would also have concluded, in the present case, for a non-violation of the author’s rights under article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant. 12