CCPR/C/126/D/2699/2015 6.7 On 23 November 2013, a senior investigator refused to open a criminal case against the police in the author’s case because of the absence of a corpus delicti. According to the investigator’s ruling, the officer who recorded the author’s statements on 23 January 2013 had been interrogated along with two other officers. All officers had denied using unlawful methods of interrogation against the author and had emphasized the voluntary nature of the author’s depositions. 6.8 The existence of injuries on the author’s body 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 2013. 6.9 According to the State party, the author’s right to counsel was not violated. The lawyer who represented the author as a suspect and as an accused confirmed that the interrogations had been carried out in line with the requirements of the criminal procedure law and that no agents of the police had been present during the interrogations. In addition, the author had never asked for a new lawyer to represent him, no other agreements for legal representation had been concluded and there had been no grounds to substantiate an unsatisfactory level of representation for the author. 6.10 The State party also notes that, in his cassation appeals against the decision of 7 May 2014 and the appeal decision of 28 July 2014, the author complained about his forced confessions. However, he also sought to be tried under article 109 of the Criminal Code instead of article 111, thus admitting the existence of a causal link between his acts and the death of the victim. 6.11 In the light of the above, the State party considers that the author’s argumentation on the use of unlawful methods against him appears to have been correctly assessed by the courts as constituting a defence strategy. Accordingly, the State party considers that no violation of any of the author’s rights occurred in the present case. Author’s comments to the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 On 28 September 2016, the author provided comments to the State party’s observations on the merits. He first notes that the only eyewitnesses of his beatings were the police officers who carried them out, and their depositions must be assessed critically, because they have an interest in the matter. On the other hand, numerous pieces of evidence, including several witness depositions and the results of expert examinations, demonstrate that the author’s account of events, including of the use of force against him, was truthful and that on this basis an effective investigation should have been carried out. 7.2 According to the author, police officer V. closed the door of the office and another officer started beating him with a bat on the arms and feet. After the beatings, the author was handcuffed and tied with a cord for one and a half hours. V. kicked the author on the back and in the area of his kidneys, demanding that the author confess guilt. The author experienced moral suffering including physical pain. He could not bear this treatment and, as a result, signed confessions as dictated to him. When he returned to the home of his parents, his mother had to call an ambulance, owing to the poor state of his health. He informed the medical personnel of the beatings, and on the following day, inspector B. asked him to go to the police station. Because of his health status, however, the author did not go to the police station. Later the same day, he was hospitalized. On 24 January 2013, three police officers brought him to the police station. He was beaten again. He was officially arrested and was made to confirm in writing that his injuries were the result of a fall. 7.3 The author claims that these facts can be confirmed by the testimony of several witnesses. Regarding the witness K., the author notes that according to the State party, this witness did not advise the author to contact the police, did not see the police beating the author and did not see the author’s injuries on 23 January 2013. The author reports that K. confirmed to the non-governmental organization “Committee against Torture” that from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. on 22 January 2013, K. and the author were in the village of Zeletsino. In 7