CCPR/C/130/D/2429/2014 when the failure by the State party to observe its obligations under article 2 is the proximate cause of a distinct violation of the Covenant directly affecting the individual claiming to be a victim.2 The Committee notes in that regard that the author claims a violation of article 2 (2) in conjunction with article 7 because the State party failed to take measures to prevent torture and to effectively investigate his complaints and provide an effective remedy. Based on the information on file, however, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate this claim for the purposes of admissibility, in a manner that would render them distinct from the claims that he has advanced under article 7, and declares it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.4 The Committee notes the author’s claim that he has exhausted all available legal domestic remedies. The Committee also notes that, while not claiming inadmissibility of the author’s claims due to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State party submits that the author has not appealed the judgment of the Aksiy district court dated 31 July 2007 thereby making his claim of a violation of article 14 (2) inadmissible. The Committee recalls that the purpose of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol is, inter alia, to direct possible victims of violations of the provisions of the Covenant to seek, in the first instance, satisfaction from the competent authorities of the State party and, at the same time, to enable States parties to examine, on the basis of individual complaints, the implementation, within their territory and by their organs, of the provisions of the Covenant and, if necessary, remedy the violations occurring, before the Committee is seized of the matter.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s submission that there are no domestic legal remedies available in Kyrgyzstan through which one could establish a violation of his presumption of innocence under article 14 (2) of the Covenant (see paras. 3.4 and 5.2 above), but observes that this claim was not raised either during the trial or at any time thereafter and that, as a result, domestic institutions did not have the possibility of reviewing compliance with the Covenant as regards this claim. The Committee recalls that mere doubts about the effectiveness of domestic remedies do not absolve an author from the requirement to exhaust them and that the fulfilment of reasonable procedural rules is the responsibility of the author.4 Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the author’s claim in relation to a violation of article 14 (2) of the Covenant is inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 Although not directly invoked by the author, the communication also appears to raise issues under article 9 (1) of the Covenant regarding the author’s claim about the arbitrariness of his detention and its review. 6.6 With regard to the remaining claims under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a), and articles 9 (3) and (4), 10 (1) and 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant, the Committee considers that, despite not appealing his criminal sentence, the author has attempted to seek satisfaction from the competent authorities of the State party and remedy the violations through his complaints to the prosecutor’s office and courts, up to the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining these claims, considers them sufficiently substantiated, for the purposes of admissibility, and proceeds with its consideration of 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, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that, on 22 April 2007 at 11 a.m., he was arrested by police officers of the Aksiy district police department on suspicion of cattle theft. While at the Aksiy district police station, he was subjected to beatings by four police officers for refusing to confess to several cattle thefts that had taken place in the area earlier. According to the author, he was handcuffed, punched in the head, kicked in the stomach and kidneys, a plastic bag was placed over his head, which made him suffocate and lose 2 3 4 Zhukovsky v. Belarus (CCPR/C/127/D/2724/2016), para. 6.4; Zhukovsky v. Belarus (CCPR/C/127/D/2955/2017), para. 6.4; and Zhukovsky v. Belarus (CCPR/C/127/D/3067/2017), para. 6.6. Human Rights Committee, T.K. v. France, communication No. 220/1987, para. 8.3. Tonenkaya v. Ukraine (CCPR/C/112/D/2123/2011), para. 7.4. 5