PART 2: Procedures of the Human Rights Commitee and the Committee against Torture indicates that the author did not request to be examined by a medical of���cer with the purpose of establishing ill-treatment, which has not been contested by the author. The Committee further notes that despite spending such a long time in hospital so soon after the alleged ill-treatment, and despite being in possession of medical certificates concerning his treatment in hospital of haematuria and arthropathy of his knees, back and spine, these certificates do not indicate that any of these sufferings resulted from actual ill-treatment. Nor do any of these certificates mention any traces or consequences of beatings on the author’s head or body. The Committee considers that the author, who had access to medical care, had the possibility of requesting a medical examination and did so for the purpose of proving that he was a drug addict. However, he failed to request a medical examination for the purpose of establishing ill-treatment. … Finally the NGO and Committee on the Prevention of Torture reports submitted by the author [about torture in Greece] are of a general character and cannot establish ill-treatment of the author.268 In Bazarov v. Uzbekistan one claim related to torture perpetrated during a pre-trial investigation. It was found to be inadmissible as it was largely unsubstantiated. For example, there was no evidence that a medical examination was sought at any stage, or that the alleged victim had complained of torture in his subsequent trial, or that his relatives or his lawyer had complained of any acts of torture during the pre-trial investigation.269 Regarding the burden of proof, the author must initially make out a credible prima facie case. If such a case is made out, the State party is expected to properly investigate the claims.270 The Committee has consistently maintained that the burden of proof cannot rest alone on the author of the communication, especially considering that the author and the State party do not always have equal access to the relevant information. It is implicit in article 4, paragraph 2 of the Optional Protocol that the State party has the duty to investigate in good faith all allegations of violation of the Covenant made against it and its authorities and to furnish the Committee the information available to it. In cases where the allegations are corroborated by evidence submitted by the author and where further clarification of the cases depends on information exclusively in the hands of the State party, the Committee may consider the author’s allegations as substantiated in the absence of satisfactory evidence and explanation to the contrary submitted by the State party.271 A State must respond to specific allegations with specific responses and relevant evidence: “denials of a general character do not suffice”.272 267 See, e.g., CAT Committee, H.K.H. v. Sweden, Comm. No. 204/02, para. 6.3. 268 HRC, Kouidis v. Greece, Comm. No. 1070/02, paras. 7.3 and 7.4. See also HRC, Singh v. New Zealand, Comm. No. 791/1997. 269 HRC, Bazarov v. Uzbekistan, Comm. No. 959/2000, para. 7.3. 270 HRC, Lanza v. Uruguay, Comm. No. 8/1977, para. 15. See also Sections 3.2.16(b) and 4.7.2. 271 HRC, Bousroual v. Algeria, Comm. No. 992/2001, para. 9.4. This quote has been repeated in numerous OP cases, such as Bleier v. Uruguay, Comm. No. 30/1978, para. 13.3. 272 See, e.g., HRC, Weismann v. Uruguay, Comm. No. 8/1977, para. 15. 89