CCPR/C/128/D/2710/2015 the present case, it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from considering the communication. 7.4 The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated, for the purposes of admissibility, his claims raising issues under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a) and article 14 (3) (g), of the Covenant. Accordingly, it declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that he was tortured by the police and was forced to confess guilt for crimes despite not having participated in the mass riots in the city of Osh. In substantiation, the author provides detailed information regarding his torture allegations. He claims that on 20 April 2011 he was taken to a police station in the city of Osh, where he was held in handcuffs. Four police officers subjected him to physical illtreatment to force him to confess guilt in respect of a number of crimes. For around four hours, he was beaten on the head and the neck. They threatened that if he did not confess guilt as requested, he would not leave the police station alive. They then put a plastic bag over his head and began suffocating him until he lost consciousness. The Osh Regional Prosecutor’s Office ordered a preliminary investigation, yet it was conducted improperly since certain data were lost, the author and his defence were not given the opportunity to challenge the medical expert’s opinion and to apply for a comprehensive medical, psychological and psychiatric expert examination, none of the security officers who had apprehended the author was interrogated, there was no “confrontation” meeting between them and the author, and nor was the author questioned, even though he was able to establish the identity of the individuals and the circumstances of his ill-treatment. Eventually, his complaints were ignored by the prosecution. Furthermore, there is no indication in the materials before the Committee that the evidence that the author was not present in the State party during the riots, which underlies his alibi claim and which would render his confession a false confession, was seriously examined. In this regard, the Committee recalls that once a complaint of ill-treatment contrary to article 7 has been filed, a State party must investigate it promptly and impartially. 3 The author’s allegations of torture and forced confession were ultimately rejected as being groundless and treated as having been made up as part of an attempt by the author to avoid criminal responsibility. 8.3 The Committee notes that as a result of the author’s complaints, his allegations of torture were investigated by the same investigator who had been in charge of the criminal investigation against him. It also notes that Osh Regional Court returned the case for an additional inquiry and the Osh Regional Prosecutor’s Office again put the same investigator in charge. The Committee further notes the author’s allegation that no additional investigative steps were taken by the investigator and that the wording of the second refusal to initiate criminal proceedings was identical to that of the earlier decision. The Committee therefore notes that the material on file does not allow it to conclude that the investigation into the allegations of torture was carried out effectively and impartially. In the present case, the lack of impartial inquiry is further demonstrated by the fact that although the investigator interviewed the police officers, there is no indication that the investigator took other investigative steps, such as meeting and interviewing the author about his torture allegations, inspecting the place of torture, interviewing witnesses, and clarifying the circumstances under which the bodily injuries were inflicted on the author. 8.4 The Committee also notes the author’s claim that at the time of the mass riots in Osh and the crimes he was sentenced for, he was not present on the territory of the State party. Although this claim was supported by documentary evidence, there is no indication on file that it was investigated at any stage of the domestic proceedings. The Committee therefore 3 See Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 14; and Gunan v. Kyrgyzstan (CCPR/C/102/D/1545/2007), para. 6.2. 7