CCPR/C/116/D/2099/2011 had occurred that would lead it to doubt the evidence of the author’s guilt. The Supreme Court did not find grounds to overturn the verdict because it found that the cassation arguments of the author, i.e. that he was subjected to unlawful investigation methods, had been thoroughly reviewed by the first instance court and declared unfounded, and it did not find any procedural violations. 6.3 According to information presented by the Gryazinsky City Court, during the review of the author’s complaint that the Office of the Gryazinsky Interregional Prosecutor had failed to take action, on 30 May and 4 June 2012, the court reviewed the case file of verification No. 1-81 pr-2002, requested from the Office of the Gryazinsky Interregional Prosecutor, and the file of the review of verification No. 6-107-10, requested from the Gryazinsky Interregional Investigative Department. It was determined that on 2 December 2002, the Office of the Gryazinsky Interregional Prosecutor refused to open a criminal case against police officers of the Gryazinsky Regional Department of Internal Affairs because their actions did not constitute a crime. On 4 June 2012, the Gryazinsky City Court discontinued the proceedings on the inaction complaint under article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code because the author had not filed a complaint regarding the actions of the “unknown person” who had inflicted injuries upon him while he was in detention. The author filed such a complaint in October 2012. The competent investigating body conducted a verification in accordance with articles 144 and 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, on 24 November 2012, issued a ruling refusing to open a criminal investigation on the ground that no crime had been committed. On 21 December 2012, the Office of the Gryazinsky Interregional Prosecutor revoked that ruling and the ruling of 2 December 2002 and ordered a new verification to be conducted. At the time of submission that investigation was ongoing. Author’s additional comments 7. In additional comments dated 25 November 2013, the author submits that the decisions refusing to open an investigation were not revoked and that no investigation has taken place. He presents in evidence a copy of a decision of the Gryazinsky City Court dated 8 November 2013 stating that the Investigative Committee for the Lypetsk Region had issued a ruling dated 23 February 2013, refusing to open a criminal investigation; that the author had appealed the ruling before the Gryazinsky City Court; that the court rejected the appeal on 12 April 2013; and that no investigation of the author’s allegation was taking place. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee notes that the author claims to have exhausted all the available domestic remedies. The Committee also notes the State party’s assertion that on 21 December 2012, the Office of the Gryazinsky Interregional Prosecutor revoked the rulings of 24 November 2012 and 2 December 2002 and ordered a new verification to be conducted. However, the Committee observes that according to the author’s uncontested claim, the Investigative Committee for the Lypetsk Region issued a ruling dated 23 February 2013, stating that it refused to open a criminal investigation; that the author 5