CAT/C/56/D/577/2013 the Russian Federation, court decisions may be appealed within one year of their entry into force. That term has expired. The complainant’s complaints do not contain any information regarding the existence of new or newly discovered facts, which according to article 413 of the Code could serve as grounds to reopen the criminal proceedings in his case. 6.2 The State party also submits that, since it could not be established that police officers were responsible for the complainant’s fractured rib, on 29 September 2013, a criminal case was initiated by the Pyatigorsk Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. At the time of submission of the State party’s additional observations, the investigation was still ongoing. The State party reiterates that the communication should therefore be declared inadmissible under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. Moreover, the State party holds that the complainant is not a victim of violations of the Convention and his communication is a strategy to avoid having to serve his prison sentence. Complainant’s further submissions 7.1 In a submission dated 13 November 2014, the complainant argues that the Committee should request copies of the case files of the criminal case against him from Pyatigorsk City Court and copies of the documents related to verification No. 689/09 from the police. Those documents contain the results of the forensic medical examination, reflecting the damage to his health inflicted as a result of torture. He reiterates that his complaints submitted in the Russian Federation are not being reviewed, but are forwarded to the official about whose actions he is complaining. He requests a prison visit in order to demonstrate the damage inflicted on him through torture. He also requests the Committee to request the European Court of Human Rights to review his application, No. 33772/13, and to indicate all the violations of his rights under the Convention and domestic legislation, because the individuals who tortured him have never been punished. Indeed, one of them has been promoted. 7.2 In a submission dated 4 February 2015, the complainant argues that the State party provided incorrect information in its submission. He states that ever since the 26 August 2009 verdict was issued against him by Pyatigorsk City Court, he has been asking for copies of the relevant documents, but the Court continues to refuse to provide them. He maintains that that constitutes a violation of article 24.2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. He maintains that the Supreme Court has established that Pyatigorsk City Court committed procedural violations and that his verdict should be revoked on that basis. He reiterates that he was convicted based on a confession extracted by torture and that the courts ignored his complaints in that regard. He claims that the verification conducted by the Pyatigorsk Prosecutor’s office on 27 and 29 November 2012 established that torture had been used, which should have been considered a newly discovered fact and should have served as a basis to reopen the case. He submits that on 16 September 2013, the Prosecutor of the Stavropol Region forwarded his complaint to the Pyatigorsk Prosecutor’s office with instructions to conduct additional investigations, but the Pyatigorsk Prosecutor failed to do so. In addition, he argues that his verdict should have been reviewed after amendments were introduced in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. 7.3 In a submission dated 16 March 2015, the complainant submits that the individuals who subjected him to torture have not been punished, and reiterates his submission of 4 February 2015. He requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to ask for the reopening of his criminal case and review of the verdict. 7.4 In a submission dated 23 March 2015, the complainant submits that one of the officers who tortured him has been promoted to head of the police department. Meanwhile, the complainant is still suffering from the consequences of the torture inflicted by that officer. He reiterates that he has a hearing loss, that his rib was broken and that as a result 6