CAT/C/60/D/651/2015 January 2012 to five years and six months of imprisonment. The complainant appealed the decision to dismiss his claim of 30 December with the Ural city court, on the grounds that he had been tortured. His appeal was dismissed on 5 June 2014. The complainant appealed the dismissal of his 30 December motion with the Western Kazakhstan regional court, on the grounds that he had been tortured. His appeal was again rejected, on 11 June 2014. Domestic remedies were therefore exhausted by the complainant on that date. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that he was subjected to torture by the State party’s authorities and, therefore, his rights under article 1 of the Convention were violated. 3.2 The complainant submits that the State party did not undertake the necessary measures to prevent his being tortured during the initial period of detention, effectively condoning torture, in violation of article 2 (1) of the Convention. 3.3 The complainant further claims, under articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, that the State party did not proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, based on reasonable grounds to believe that an act of torture had been committed; that the State party did not ensure that the case was promptly and impartially examined by the competent authorities; and that the State party did not take steps to ensure that the complainant and witnesses were protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation. 3.4 The investigation into the claims of torture was ineffective. It disregarded the medical certificates, which clearly prove that torture had taken place. The complainant and his representatives did not have access to the torture investigation materials. All the information obtained by investigators was based on evidence provided by police officers, who were not interested in revealing the truth. 3.5 The complainant contends that the State party did not guarantee his right to obtain redress and the right to fair and adequate compensation, in violation of article 14 of the Convention. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 By note verbale dated 17 March 2015, the State party challenged the admissibility of the complaint. The State party submits that the complainant was charged with and convicted of two crimes: hooliganism (under article 257 (3) of the Criminal Code) and robbery (under article 179 of the Code). On 17 January 2012, the complainant was sentenced to five years and six months of imprisonment. 4.2 The complainant’s appeals were rejected by the appellate court on 28 March 2012 and the cassation appeals court on 30 October 2014. Both courts ruled that the decisions of the lower courts on the complainant’s appeals should stand. Article 458 of the Criminal Procedure Code foresees the right of a convicted person to appeal a conviction even after the sentence has taken effect. This can be done by filing a request for a supervisory review with the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan. 4.3 This right is not limited in time. The complainant can still apply for a supervisory review and since he has failed to exhaust this remedy, the Committee must consider his complaint inadmissible. 4.4 The State party further claims that on 14 December 2011, the department responsible for economic crimes and corruption refused to initiate a criminal investigation on the basis of the complainant’s claims of torture, finding, again, that no crime of torture had been committed. 4.5 On 30 July 2015, the State party provided its observations on the merits of the communication. It submits that on 1 September 2011, the authorities indeed received a complaint of torture from the complainant. On 14 September, the prosecutor’s office started an investigation into the circumstances of the complainant’s claims. This preliminary investigation was closed without initiating a criminal case, as the authorities found that no crime had been committed against the complainant. 3