CCPR/C/126/D/2699/2015 obtained under torture, but used them in the conviction, in violation of the requirements of article 7 of the Covenant. The State party did not initiate the necessary investigation of the author’s allegations, in violation of article 7, read together with article 2 (3). Article 14 (3) (g) was also violated, because the author was forced by the police, under torture, to confess guilt in a murder. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes that the State party has challenged the admissibility of the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, because the author has not complained to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation under the cassation proceedings. The Committee takes note of the author’s objection as to the effectiveness of the procedure in question given that his cassation appeal to the Nizhegorodsk Regional Court has already been rejected. The author has also noted that it is up to the State party to demonstrate that a particular remedy is effective but this was not done in his case. 8.3 The Committee notes that the cassation appeals procedure of the State party concerns the revision, on points of law only, of court decisions that entered into force. The decisions on whether to refer a case for hearing by the cassation court is discretionary in nature, does not have a time limit and is made by a single judge. These characteristics lead the Committee to believe that such cassation review requests contain elements of an extraordinary remedy. In accordance with the Committee’s jurisprudence, therefore, the State party must show that there is a reasonable prospect that such procedure would provide an effective remedy in the circumstances of the case. In the absence of any clarification from the State party on the effectiveness of the cassation review procedures in cases similar to the present one, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) from examining the present communication. 8.4 Accordingly, it declares the communication admissible as raising issues under article 7, read alone and together with article 2 (3), and article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant, and proceeds with its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The author claims that he was beaten by police officials during the preliminary investigation on charges of murder. In substantiation, he claimed that he was beaten by three police officers, one of whom he referred to as V. An officer kicked him on the arms and feet. He was handcuffed and was tied tightly with a rope in a very uncomfortable position for an hour and a half. V. kicked him on his back and in the area of his kidneys, demanding that he confess guilt. As a result, the author suffered moral damages including physical pain in his back, arms and head. Shortly after the beatings, the author, being scared, signed the confessions as dictated by the police. The author claims that the law enforcement authorities and the courts did not exclude the confessions obtained from him under duress, but instead used them as a basis for his subsequent conviction. The official documents regarding the investigation were signed by a lawyer chosen by the investigation and the author also countersigned them. Following his release and his return to the home of his parents, the author’s mother called an ambulance because of the author’s poor state of health and the pain he was experiencing. She complained to the members of the emergency personnel that her son had been beaten up by the police. As a result, the author had to be hospitalized on 23 and 24 January 2013. 9.3 The Committee notes that the State party has observed the trial court’s decision to give a central role to the author’s depositions produced at the time of the preliminary investigation, given that they were corroborated by a large amount of evidence. The State party has also contended that the author’s torture allegations have been correctly assessed 9