Advance unedited version CCPR/C/132/D/2814/2016 9.6 With respect to the State party’s obligation to properly investigate the author’s claims of ill-treatment, the Committee observes that the national authorities promptly responded to the author’s criminal complaint. A forensic examination was carried out two days after the alleged incident. An additional medical examination by a panel of forensic experts was commissioned at the author’s request. The investigation into the police officers’ conduct was carried out by structurally independent officials from Uzgen district prosecutor’s office. It has not been argued by the author, nor could be concluded on the basis of presented documents, that the investigators had any personal bias on any ground. 9.7 The Committee notes the author’s argument, that national authorities failed to question all witnesses and to commission additional expert reports. National authorities took statements from the author and his mother, the police officers and several civilians. The author did not clearly specify who the authorities should have questioned and what information capable to affect the outcome of the proceedings these potential witnesses could have provided. The Committee does not consider, in absence of clear and unequivocal medical evidence of the ill-treatment, that by failing to question the author’s treating doctors, domestic authorities have rendered the criminal proceedings ineffective. The author did not indicate that his doctors’ testimonies would differ from their written diagnosis, which were examined in the course of criminal proceedings in detail. With respect to the expert examinations, the Committee observes that the author did not claim, either at national level or in his submissions before the Committee, that the two medical expert reports (forensic report No. 517, of 21 June 2011 and report No. 16, of 14 July 2011) were falsified. 9.8 In light of the abovementioned consideration, the Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it do not disclose a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 5