CAT/C/56/D/577/2013 complainant’s claims, several decisions were issued refusing to initiate a criminal investigation, the latest on 7 November 2013, issued by the senior investigator of the Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation in Stavropol District. That decision was revoked by a decision of 5 December 2013 of the Stavropol District Prosecutor’s office, which indicated that an additional investigation was required to identify the individuals who had been detained with the complainant at the time that he was injured, in order to question them and further clarify the circumstances surrounding the complainant’s arrest. The State party submits that, at the time of its submission, that additional verification had not been completed; it was scheduled to continue until 3 March 2014. The verification was lengthy because the complainant presented new arguments that had not been verified previously. Complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations and additional submission 5.1 In a submission dated 23 June 2014, the complainant challenges the State party’s submission of 4 April 2014. He reiterates that he was subjected to torture when he was arrested on 11 October 2008 and taken to the Regional Department of the Ministry of the Interior in Pyatigorsk; the torture started immediately upon his arrival. A ruling ordering his arrest was not issued until 15 October 2008, his arrest therefore constituting a violation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. He reiterates that he was convicted for a crime he did not commit and argues that the verdict against him was unlawful. He submits that he requested the court in Pyatigorsk to provide him with copies of the documents allegedly testifying to the violations of which he was accused, but his numerous requests were rejected. 5.2 In a submission dated 26 June 2014, the complainant submits that an order for a forensic medical examination of his injuries was issued on 14 June 2010, but that no such examination was conducted. Another such order was issued on 10 May 2013. He maintains that the only medical examination he underwent was conducted by a traumatologist in polyclinic No. 1 in Pyatigorsk, who concluded that the complainant had suffered serious injuries. The complainant also maintains that he was never examined by the forensic medical expert indicated in the State party’s submission. He reiterates that he is still suffering as a result of the torture: he is unable to lie on his right side or on his stomach as his fractured rib did not heal correctly and now presses against his internal organs. He submits that if his hearing loss was the result of an infection, he should have been treated for the infection. He still suffers from hearing loss and he hears a permanent noise. He submits that by the time he registered his complaint regarding torture, the medical examination report issued by the traumatologist in the polyclinic had been “lost” and replaced by the medical examination report of the State-appointed expert. He maintains that for five years and seven months, his complaints regarding torture have been forwarded from one institution to another, but have not been reviewed on their merits. He submits copies of requests to the Supreme Court for supervisory review of his case and a copy of the letter dated 2 September 2010 from the Deputy Chair of the Supreme Court rejecting his request, as well as copies of requests for compensation for the fact that he has not been given copies of case materials and the 17 November 2011 Supreme Court decision refusing to grant such compensation. State party’s additional observations 6.1 In a submission dated 22 October 2014, the State party submits that Stavropol Regional Court confirmed the 26 August 2009 verdict of Pyatigorsk City Court sentencing the complainant to 10 years’ imprisonment for committing a sexual assault and inflicting bodily injuries that resulted in death. Stavropol Regional Court stated that the complainant’s arguments regarding the use of unlawful methods of investigation in his case were unfounded. In accordance with article 401.2.4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 5