CAT/C/60/D/651/2015 matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. It notes that in the present case, the State party argues that the complainant has not filed a request for a supervisory review before the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan. However, the State party has not shown whether and in how many cases supervisory review procedures were successfully applied in cases concerning torture. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the State party has not provided sufficient information to demonstrate the effectiveness of filing a complaint before the Supreme Court under the supervisory review procedure about ill-treatment or torture, following the entry into force of the final decision of a court. 7 Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 22 (b) of the Convention from examining the present communication. Having found no obstacles to the admissibility, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties concerned, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 7.2 The Committee notes that the complainant has alleged a violation of articles 1 and 2 (1) of the Convention on the grounds that the State party failed in its duty to prevent and punish acts of torture. These provisions are applicable insofar as the acts to which the complainant was subjected are considered acts of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention.8 In this respect, the Committee notes the complainant’s detailed description of the treatment he was subjected to while in police custody and of the content of at least two medical certificates which corroborate the information provided by the complainant and provide detailed descriptions of the injuries. The Committee considers that the treatment as described by the complainant can be characterized as severe pain and suffering inflicted deliberately by officials with a view to obtaining a forced confession. 7.3 The Committee considers that under these circumstances, the State party should be presumed liable for the harm caused to the complainant unless it provides a compelling alternative explanation. In the present case, despite several investigations conducted by the authorities, the State party provided no such explanation, merely denying involvement and even suggesting that some of the injuries could have been self-inflicted. In the absence of a plausible explanation from the State party, and in the circumstances of the present communication, the Committee considers that due weight must be given to the author’s detailed allegations. Accordingly, based on the detailed account which the complainant has given of ill-treatment and torture, including names of perpetrators and at least two witnesses, and the corroboration of his allegations in the medical forensic documentation, the Committee concludes that the facts as reported constitute torture by the police within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention and that the State party failed in its duty to prevent and punish acts of torture, in violation of article 2 (1) of the Convention. 7.4 The complainant also claims that no prompt, impartial and effective investigation was carried out into his allegations of torture and that those responsible have not been prosecuted, in violation of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention. The Committee notes the unrefuted evidence that the author raised his torture claims on numerous occasions, including during his pretrial detention hearing and with the prosecutors. Furthermore, the complainant addressed his torture claims in his letter dated 12 September 2011, which was rejected by the Western Kazakhstan regional court on 23 September. 7 8 See, for example, communication No. 441/2010, Evloev v. Kazakhstan, decision adopted on 5 November 2013, para. 8.5. See communication No. 269/2005, Ben Salem v. Tunisia, decision adopted on 7 November 2007, para. 16.4. 5