CCPR/C/126/D/2699/2015 5.9 According to the author, he had no recourse to an effective remedy after the rejection of his cassation appeal. Thus, he considers that he has exhausted all available domestic remedies. State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 In a note verbale dated 25 July 2016, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the complaint. The State party explains that the court of first instance decided to give a central role to the depositions given by the author during the preliminary investigation, when he was interrogated as an accused, and the information given by a witness, since the respective accounts were matching and comprehensive and did not contain major contradictions. The State party also notes that these depositions were provided in a short period of time after the incriminating events and in the presence of a defence attorney. In addition, prior to giving the depositions, the author was informed about his rights and notified that the testimonies could be used against him in case of a future withdrawal. The author’s testimonies were consistent. Furthermore, they matched the conclusions of the medical-forensic expert examination on the nature and the means of the occurrence of the bodily harm of the victim, the depositions of the witnesses and other evidence on file. In court, the author explained that he had confessed guilt under duress, but the court had assessed this critically. In support of his claims, the author quoted the statements of a number of witnesses and the medical records regarding the emergency service and his hospitalization. 6.2 Analysing the evidence, the court concluded that it could not confirm the version of events presented by the defence on the beatings of the author by the police, since none of the witnesses had seen the infliction of bodily harm to the author. The witnesses had only learned about the harm from the author’s explanations, and the testimonies of the witnesses were contradictory. Several witnesses affirmed that they had seen the author with a swollen face on 23 and 24 January 2013. All the medical personnel in the ambulance, however, confirmed that no visible damages had been identified. 6.3 The former wife of the author has confirmed that on 18 January 2013 she gave birth to a daughter. She spoke with the author every day on the phone and he was supposed to come collect her from the hospital when she was discharged. In a conversation on 23 January 2013, the author did not inform her about any police beatings. It was only during a second phone call later the same day that he told her that he had been beaten by the police and that he could not be present when she was discharged from the hospital. In court, the author could not explain why he did not inform his wife about the beatings during the first phone conversation. 6.4 Several witnesses testified that on 23 January 2013 the author complained of a headache as a result of the beatings. In court, however, he explained that he did not know why he had not been feeling well and thought that it had been because of the use of alcohol. This corroborates the information in the medical file on his admission to the hospital on 23 January 2013 with alcoholic intoxication. In addition, the author testified that on 24 January 2013, as a result of being drunk, he accepted the suggestion of an individual named K. to incriminate the police officers. 6.5 In his deposition, K. affirmed that he had not suggested that the author should go to the police. In addition, K. had not witnessed the police putting the author under pressure or inflicting bodily harm on him on 23 January 2013. According to what K. had witnessed, the police had not used violence and the author had provided his testimonies voluntarily, in the presence of a lawyer. 6.6 In court, 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 obtain 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 author also explained that his interrogations as a suspect or an accused were carried out in the presence of a lawyer but that he never spoke to the lawyer about any pressure put on him by the police. 6