CCPR/C/128/D/2710/2015 2010 by the camp’s commander (an Andijan Region local government representative), which specifically lists the author, under number “10”; and a certificate given to one of the author’s relatives by the local self-government chairperson corroborating the author’s claim that seven Kyrgyz citizens stayed at T.K.’s home for four days, before returning to the refugee camp. In addition, T.K.’s interrogation report and the reply from the customs service confirm the author’s arrival in Uzbekistan on 10 June 2010 and his stay at T.K.’s house. Lastly, the author’s passport stamp attests to the fact that he entered the territory of Uzbekistan on 10 June 2010. 5.5 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Supreme Court in two instances neither examined nor took into account the fact that the author had not been present on the territory of the State party between 10 June and 22 June 2010 and that, consequently, he could not have committed the crimes he was charged with. The Court did not evaluate properly the forensic medical report certifying the author’s injuries, or the credibility of the claims that his confession had been extracted under duress. The forensic medical expert only pointed to a potential discrepancy regarding the time at which the bodily injuries were inflicted, without, however, flatly refuting that they were inflicted at the police station. However, it was this potential discrepancy that was presented as the principal argument for refusing to initiate criminal proceedings into the author’s allegations of torture. 5.6 The author also claims that the medical expert’s examination did not meet the criteria of completeness and comprehensiveness, or of validity and substantiation. In particular, the clinical facts from the time of the alleged torture up until the time of the expert examination were not described in detail. The record of the medical expert’s examination only indicated the presence of injuries, without providing a description of their nature, and therefore lacked a proper analysis of the existing injuries. Despite the author having complained of pain in the left side of his lumbar region, no relevant examination was carried out. This resulted in a loss of data on functional disorders, which could have served as evidence of torture. Furthermore, the author and his defence were not given the opportunity to challenge the expert’s opinion and to apply for a comprehensive medical, psychological and psychiatric expert examination involving competent alternative specialists. 5.7 The author contests the State party’s affirmation that he had been unable to establish the identity of the individuals and the circumstances of the beating. Although the preliminary investigation established that on 20 April 2011 the author had been apprehended and brought to the Department of Internal Affairs in the city of Osh by the Ministry of the Interior task force for that city, which comprised Mr. M., Mr. K. and Mr. B., none of those security officers was interrogated. In addition, there was no “confrontation” meeting with the author due to the refusal of the Osh Regional Prosecutor’s Office to open a criminal case and conduct a thorough investigation. Nor was the author questioned by the Osh Regional Prosecutor’s Office, following the filing of his complaint regarding the actions of the police officers. Thus, the State party failed to investigate the circumstances surrounding the author’s beatings, and the opportunity to interrogate witnesses and inspect the place of torture in a timely manner was lost.2 5.8 The author recalls the steps taken with the domestic authorities. On 22 April 2011, he and his lawyer filed complaints with the Osh Regional Prosecutor’s Office against the police officers, who had ill-treated him in order to force him to confess guilt. The same investigator who was in charge of the investigation in the criminal case against the author was also assigned to verify the author’s claims of torture, and he ordered a forensic medical examination for the purpose of identifying the author’s bodily injuries and assessing their gravity. On 19 May 2011, without having interrogated the police officers concerned, and on the basis of the conclusion from the forensic medical examination, the investigator refused to initiate criminal proceedings in relation to the author’s allegations of torture. On 4 May 2011 and 7 June 2011 respectively, the author’s sister and counsel filed complaints with the Prosecutor General against the police officers who had tortured the author. On 28 June 2011, the Prosecutor General’s Office dismissed the complaints, stating that there were no 2 The author refers to art. 156 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, according to which, after having received a complaint, an investigator must verify thoroughly the arguments stated therein. 5