CCPR/C/126/D/2697/2015 3.3 In addition, the conditions in which the author was detained were inhuman, in violation of article 10 (1) of the Covenant. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 21 April 2017, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits. On 6 November 2012, police officers conducted an inspection of the temporary detention centre of the Department of Internal Affairs in the city of Jalalabad, in which the deputy prosecutor of the city of Jalalabad took part. In the course of the inspection, forbidden objects, such as mobile telephones, chargers, batteries and headphones, were found in the cells and seized. 4.2 On 7 November 2012, 19 of the 43 detainees at the temporary detention centre, including a minor, expressed their discontent with the actions of the officers of the Department of Internal Affairs. In protest against the seizures, the detainees injured themselves, cut their arms, necks and abdomens, and announced a hunger strike. They were provided with first aid by medical practitioners. 4.3 As regards the author’s claims about the violence against him, the State party submits that the author filed a complaint with the prosecutor’s office of the city of Jalalabad, requesting the prosecution of a police officer who allegedly beat him in his cell on 6 November 2012. On 14 November 2012, a forensic medical examination was carried out, according to which there were no signs of beatings or violence on the author’s body, except the cuts on his left wrist, which were self-inflicted. 4.4 As a result of an investigation of 30 November 2012, the prosecutor’s office refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the officer on the ground that the latter’s actions did not constitute a crime. The author’s counsel appealed the decision of the prosecutor’s office to the city court of Jalalabad. The appeal was allowed on 4 February 2013 and the decision of the prosecutor’s office was overturned. The regional court of Jalalabad upheld the ruling of the city court. However, the Supreme Court overturned the aforementioned court decisions on 22 May 2013. 4.5 According to the Criminal Procedure Code, the higher courts review the lawfulness and validity of the lower courts’ decisions. The State party maintains that the Supreme Court has conducted such a review; its ruling is final and cannot be appealed, according to article 96 of the Constitution of Kyrgyzstan. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 23 June 2017, the author, commenting on the State party’s observations, submitted that the State party had failed to address his claims. 5.2 In particular, the State party does not contest that, on 6 November 2012, an inspection of the cells took place in the temporary detention facility of the Department of Internal Affairs in Jalalabad and that the author had injuries on his body. The State party further confirms that the author first applied to the prosecutor’s office requesting the opening of a criminal case against the law enforcement officers who had used physical violence against him, and subsequently appealed to the court challenging the results of the ineffective and inconclusive investigation. The State party also confirms that the author has exhausted all available domestic remedies. 5.3 The author contends that the State party has failed to explain how the investigation of the author’s allegations of torture was effective and comprehensive if several investigative steps, such as questioning witnesses and obtaining video recordings, were not carried out. 5.4 In his communication, the author draws the Committee’s attention to the violation by the State party of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant. The State party does not even attempt to prove that the preliminary examination into the author’s allegations of torture (which led to a refusal to open criminal proceedings against the police officer) was effective, thorough and comprehensive. Thus, the author claims that the preliminary examination, which concluded with a refusal to open a criminal case, was ineffective and, therefore, the State party did not fulfil its obligation to provide 4