CAT/C/52/D/497/2012 4.8 As to the alleged failure to provide the complainant with medical treatment after his ill-treatment that aggravated his health status, the State party submits that, according to the reports of the Head of the Criminal Colony UK-161/1 of 26 November and of 10 December 2008, upon the complainant’s arrival at the colony on 1 August 2008, during his medical examination he did not complain about any injuries. In addition, no bodily injuries were revealed on him. Further, the fact that he contracted infiltrative tuberculosis complicated with tuberculosis pleurisy can in no way be linked to the ill-treatment alleged. 4.9 In light of the above considerations, the State party maintains that the complainant’s allegations that he was subjected to ill-treatment by the CDIA police officers and his claims under articles 1; 12; 13; 14; 15 and 16 of the Convention are manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 5.1 On 23 September 2012, the complainant briefly reiterated the circumstances of his apprehension on 17 July 2008. He further notes that, according to the State party’s submission, the national authorities received his mother’s initial complaint concerning his ill-treatment by the police officers of the CDIA on 11 May 2010 only. In this regard, he notes that, in its observations, the State party refers to her complaint of May 2010; however, her first complaint regarding his ill-treatment was submitted already on 5 August 2008, after she visited him at the temporary detention facility and saw bruises on his body. The complainant himself lodged his first complaint to the Prosecutors Office of Rudny City and, thereafter, to the Regional Prosecutor’s Office of the Kostanai Region on 12 August 2008. 5.2 The complainant further points out that the State party has not provided any information as to what exact actions had been carried in the context of examination of his or his mother’s complaints concerning his ill-treatment. He also notes that the examination of his ill-treatment claim lasted for more than two years. Following the CDIA’s refusal to initiate criminal proceedings, the complaints concerning his ill-treatment were examined by the Office of Internal Security of the Department of Internal Affairs, which concluded that mere allegations of ill-treatment were insufficient grounds for initiating criminal proceedings. The complainant reiterates that the authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation as, for example, the place where he was ill-treated was not examined; the responsible police officers were not cross-examined; confrontations were not carried out; no witnesses were questioned; and no forensic examinations were performed. The complainant notes that the lack of a complex investigation into his ill-treatment demonstrates the superficial approach of the authorities to such examinations. In addition, the complainant had no access to the examination materials. 5.3 The complainant points out that, in 2008, the Committee noted, regarding the State party, that “the preliminary examinations of reports and complaints of torture and illtreatment by police officers are undertaken by the Department of Internal Security, which is under the same chain of command as the regular police force, and consequently do not lead to prompt and impartial examinations”.4 The Committee also has criticized the lack of independent bodies to investigate acts of torture, in particular with regard to torture by the police, because the police is usually the same agency that is tasked to conduct investigations into allegations of torture.5 The complainant also points out that, according to 4 5 8 Concluding observations regarding the second periodic report of Kazakhstan, United Nations Document CAT/C/KAZ/CO/2, 12 December 2008, para. 24. Ibid.