CCPR/C/126/D/2699/2015 Procedure (Law No. 353-FZ), which entered into force on 1 January 2012, had to be exhausted by a person intending to lodge a complaint before the court. 4.4 The State party notes that in the present case the author has not appealed under the cassation procedure to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation against the judgment of the Kstovsk City Court dated 24 April 2014 or against the ruling of the Nizhegorodsk Regional Court. The lawyer of the author has appealed under the cassation procedure only to the Nizhegorodsk Regional Court, which on 1 October 2014 refused to transmit the author’s case for examination under the cassation appeal proceedings. 4.5 In addition, the State party notes that the analysis of the author’s criminal case file did not show that the courts assessed the evidence in an arbitrary manner or committed a manifest error, or that the trial as a whole was unfair. The court of first instance verified the allegations of the defence with regard to the subjecting of the author to physical pressure by law enforcement personnel. The court concluded that those claims were unsubstantiated. Author’s comments to the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 11 July 2016, the author provided comments to the State party’s observations on admissibility. 5.2 The author states that on 10 April 2014, he appealed to the Kstovsk City Court against the investigation’s negative decision dated 23 November 2013 to open a criminal case. On 24 April 2014, the Kstovsk City Court rejected his appeal. In his criminal trial, the author appealed to the Nizhegorodsk Regional Court, which, on 5 June 2014, rejected the appeal. On 28 June 2014, the judicial collegium on criminal cases of the Nizhegorodsk Regional Court examined the author’s and his counsel’s appeals but rejected them. 5.3 By a ruling dated 1 October 2014, the judge of the Nizhegorodsk Regional Court refused to initiate a cassation appeal examination of the author’s appeal dated 12 September 2014 against the appeal ruling of the Regional Court dated 28 June 2014. 5.4 The author notes that, on 7 May 2014, the Kstovsk City Court found him guilty under article 111 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. On 28 July 2014, the criminal collegium of the Nizhegorodsk Regional Court examined a further appeal from the author and his lawyer but rejected them. The decision of 7 May 2014 thus obtained the status of res judicata. 5.5 The author notes that the refusal to transmit his cassation appeal for an examination under the cassation procedure by the Kstovsk City Court dated 24 April 2014 and the appeal ruling of the Nizhegorodsk Regional Court dated 5 June 2014 was based on the fact that the argumentation regarding the use of violence by the police against the author had been examined by the first instance court and rejected. Thus, according to the author, it is obvious that the appeal to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation would not have yielded any results because the author’s cassation appeal was rejected in any event. 5.6 As to the State party’s observations regarding the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights dated 12 May 2015 in the case of Abramyan and Others v. Russia, the author notes that on 19 April 2016, in the case of Kashlan v. Russia (application No. 60189/15), the Court concluded that filing of a cassation appeal as per the revised law 518FZ was not a remedy that had to be exhausted for purposes of article 35 (1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Recourse to such appeal is not taken into account when calculating the delay for complaining to the European Court of Human Rights. 5.7 The author also notes that, according to the Committee’s case law, if a State party considers that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, it should provide specific information on the effectiveness of the remedy in question. 5.8 In the present case, the State party simply notes that the author has not appealed to the Supreme Court, without taking into account that the author’s previous cassation appeal was rejected. 5