CCPR/C/126/D/2697/2015 examination report issued on 14 November 2012, there were no signs of beatings or violence on the author’s body, except cuts on his left wrist, which had been self-inflicted. Based on the findings of the preliminary examination, the prosecutor’s office refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officer owing to a lack of corpus delicti. The author appealed the decision of the prosecutor’s office, which, however, was upheld by the Supreme Court on 22 May 2013. 6.3 The State party concludes that the author’s comments on the State party’s observations are unfounded. From the author 6.4 In his comments, submitted on 19 March 2018, the author disagrees with the State party’s observations. He argues that the State party does not provide any information regarding the character of the inspection of the detention centre, the methods used, the number of police officers involved and the use of special means during the operation. The author claims that the presence of a prosecutor during such actions cannot guarantee that detainees will not be abused as the prosecutor represents the public prosecution in court against such persons in detention. The absence of such critical information illustrates the arbitrariness of inspections in closed institutions and the violation of the rights and freedoms of persons deprived of their liberty. 6.5 Furthermore, the prosecutor’s office once again confirmed that the author, together with 19 other detainees, had lodged a complaint with it. The author asserts that this complaint was about the ill-treatment and physical violence during the inspection of the detention cells and not about the seizure of prohibited items as alleged by the State party. The author requested measures against the police officers who tortured him in order to punish him, providing the names of the police officers who had conducted the inspection and subjected him to ill-treatment, the circumstances and the specific acts of violence. 6.6 The author’s complaint of ill-treatment during the inspection was not handled properly by the prosecutor’s office. The investigator did not take all the necessary investigative steps to establish the true reasons for the author’s self-inflicted harm (the cuts). He did not investigate the author’s allegations of torture. The reason why the author cut himself was in order to attract attention and to protest against the beatings that he had been subjected to by the police officers. The author was tortured as a form of punishment for his protest. 6.7 Finally, the author reiterates that he has exhausted all the available domestic remedies. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that he has exhausted all the domestic remedies available to him. In the absence of an objection by the State party, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met for the purposes of admissibility with regard to the author’s claims under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a), of the Covenant. The Committee observes, however, that the author has not demonstrated that he has exhausted the domestic remedies with regard to his claim that the conditions in which he was detained for four months were inhuman, in violation of article 10 (1) of the Covenant. Therefore, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have 6