CCPR/C/126/D/2699/2015 In addition, steps should be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation they might suffer as a consequence of the submitted complaint or evidence given. 2.17 The author further refers to the case law of the Committee against Torture and the European Court of Human Rights in torture cases, and notes that each time a torture complaint is formulated, it must lead to an investigation to permit the sanctioning of those responsible. In his case, however, the authorities have failed to conduct a prompt and comprehensive investigation into his torture complaints. The investigation carried out was not effective and could not be considered to be independent or impartial. In its concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of the Russian Federation, the Committee against Torture expressed concern at the failure of the national authorities to carry out prompt, effective and independent inquiries into allegations of torture (CAT/C/RUS/CO/5). The complaint 3.1 The author claims that his rights under article 7 of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), have been violated since the State party must assure an effective remedy in torture cases. He alleges that he was tortured by the police during a preliminary investigation. The law enforcement authorities and the courts did not exclude his confessions obtained under duress; instead, they used them as a basis for his conviction, in violation of article 7. The State party failed to carry out a prompt and effective investigation and to provide an adequate remedy for the violation of articles 7 and 2 (3). 3.2 The author also claims that his rights under article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant have been violated because the police subjected him to torture in order to force him to confess guilt for a crime he did not commit. Despite the fact that the author had complained in court that his confessions had been obtained under duress, and the fact that witnesses had confirmed his injuries, the court did not make a proper assessment of the allegations. As a result, the author’s confessions, obtained in violation of article 14 (3) (g), were relied upon to convict him. 3.3 The author asks the Committee to invite the State party to provide him with an effective remedy in the form of a prompt, comprehensive and effective investigation of his torture allegations; to have those responsible prosecuted and sanctioned; to have the criminal case against him reviewed in a new trial with all fair trial guarantees; to provide him with reparation for the torture suffered, the unlawful detention and arrest, and the violation of the fair trial guarantees, including compensation and rehabilitation; and to establish a mechanism for the independent and effective investigation of torture allegations, in line with the Principles on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The author also asks the Committee to recommend to the State party that it prevent similar violations in the future. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 In a note verbale dated 20 April 2016, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility of the communication. 4.2 In those observations, the State party submits that under article 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code a court decision that has entered into force is subject to a cassation appeal. Pursuant to article 401 (2) of the Code, the appeal can be submitted to the presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic, krai or regional court, the court of the city of federal significance, the court of the autonomous region, the court of the autonomous district, or to the judicial collegium of criminal cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 4.3 Regarding the effectiveness of the cassation appeals, the State party refers to a decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Abramyan and Others v. Russia, 5 wherein the Court concluded that the cassation procedure before the regional courts and the Supreme Court in civil cases introduced by a reform to the Code of Civil 5 4 Abramyan and Others v. Russia (applications No. 38951/13 and No. 59611/13).