CCPR/C/126/D/2697/2015 the author with an effective remedy within the meaning of article 2 (3) of the Covenant. In particular, the investigation conducted by the prosecutor’s office was not effective and thorough, because the investigator focused on interviewing only police officers, without even questioning the author. The investigation materials contain only the explanations of the officers from the temporary detention centre of the Department of Internal Affairs in the city of Jalalabad and the statements of some detainees who were prepared to contradict such accounts, but who later withdrew their previous complaints about torture and inhuman treatment. 5.5 Besides, during a preliminary examination it is not possible to carry out certain investigative actions, such as identification parades, interrogations or searches, and thus to collect evidence in the most effective way, because these investigative actions can be taken only after opening a criminal case. Furthermore, a preliminary examination does not produce procedurally admissible evidence. Thus, false testimony does not carry with it criminal responsibility and explanations given at that stage could be changed later on without any consequences. Therefore, the statements of the police officers cannot be regarded as witness testimony since they were not warned of criminal liability for perjury. 5.6 In addition, the author reiterates his claim that the materials collected did not include either closed circuit television footage of the detention centre’s premises (cells, corridors, exercise yard, the investigators’ office or other areas of surveillance), or a protocol establishing the viewing of such video surveillance materials. According to the author, during his beating, police officers repositioned all the surveillance cameras, and thus prevented any evidence being recorded. This explains the lack of video footage of the detention centre’s internal premises. 5.7 The State party does not contest the fact that the author appealed the outcome of the ineffective preliminary examination. The first and second instance courts assessed the circumstances of the case, the inaction of the investigator and his conclusion that the police officers’ explanations were reliable. The courts did not agree with this conclusion because the investigator did not justify why the police officers’ testimonies were more truthful. From the point of view of objectivity and fairness, the investigator had to evaluate each testimony during the examination. The police officers denied the use of force against the author, as they wished to avoid criminal prosecution. However, under the supervisory review procedure, the Supreme Court quashed the lower courts’ decisions and upheld that of the prosecutor’s office to refuse to initiate criminal proceedings. The author notes that the supervisory review of judicial decisions in the State party is not an effective remedy, as it seriously limits the right of access to a court and the principle of legal certainty. 5.8 The author affirms that the contradictory claims in the present case could only be evaluated after initiating criminal proceedings and a number of investigative actions, such as carrying out a psychiatric assessment, further interviews and a face-to-face encounter between the author and the police officers concerned. 5.9 The author further contends that he was kept in inhuman conditions in the cells of the detention centre of the Department of Internal Affairs in the city of Jalalabad. Conditions in the detention facility were such that he was treated inhumanly and without respect for his dignity. However, the State party does not respond at all to these allegations of a violation of article 10 (1) of the Covenant. Additional observations From the State party 6.1 On 17 January 2018, the State party reiterated that, on 6 November 2012, an inspection of the temporary detention centre of the Department of Internal Affairs in the city of Jalalabad had been conducted by police officers with the aim of finding and seizing forbidden objects, such as mobile telephones, chargers, batteries and headphones. 6.2 As regards the author’s allegations of physical violence inflicted on him, the State party again submits that he filed a complaint with the prosecutor’s office of the city of Jalalabad, asking it to prosecute an officer who had allegedly beat him in his cell. A full and impartial investigation was conducted in that regard. According to a forensic medical 5