CAT/C/52/D/497/2012 3.3 The complainant also submits that the State party failed to conduct a prompt and adequate investigation for purposes of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention. The CDIA and the RDIA had repeatedly refused to initiate criminal proceedings; these refusals were subsequently quashed by the Prosecutor’s Office on a number of occasions. No appropriate investigation was carried out, as interested police officers failed to conduct a proper inquiry. The investigation into his allegations lasted for about two and a half years and was conducted neither by an independent nor an impartial body. In addition, the investigation was carried out by the police department, where the torture in question had taken place. Further, the effectiveness of the investigation was also compromised by the reluctance of the authorities to obtain objective evidence and make unbiased conclusions. 3.4 Furthermore, the complainant claims that the right to compensation for harm caused by the actions of law enforcement officials is recognized only after conviction of the officials in criminal proceedings. The absence of criminal proceedings deprived him of the possibility of filling a civil claim for compensation, in violation of article 14 of the Convention. 3.5 He submits that, contrary to the guarantees under article 15 of the Convention, his forced confessions were retained by the court when establishing his guilt. 3.6 He further claims that his health condition requires specialized examination and adequate medical treatment that he cannot get in a regular prison as he contracted infiltrative tuberculosis complicated with tuberculosis pleurisy, which amounts to a violation of his rights under article 16 of the Convention. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 By note verbale of 14 June 2012, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and merits. It notes that on 11 May 2010, the Department of Internal Affairs of the Kostanai Region received a claim from the complainant’s mother about her son’s illtreatment by the CDIA’s police officers K., O. and S. On 17 May 2010, the investigator T. V. of the RDIA decided not to initiate criminal proceedings as a decision refusing to institute such proceedings had already been adopted thereon and it had not been quashed. In this regard, the State party notes that the complainant’s mother had previously submitted a number of similar complaints regarding her son’s ill-treatment to the Department of Internal Affairs of the Kostanai Region and to the RDIA. All her complaints were duly examined and the national authorities did not establish that the complainant had been subjected to physical or psychological ill-treatment with the aim of extracting his confessions. Consequently, a number of decisions were adopted refusing to have criminal proceedings initiated. 4.2 The State party further submits a brief overview of the facts concerning the criminal proceedings against the complainant and his co-accused B. It notes that on 21 August 2008, the Rudny City Court found the complainant and B. guilty of having committed a crime under article 179, paragraph 2 ‘a’, of the Criminal Code (robbery committed in a group) and sentenced them to five years of imprisonment. Both the complainant and B. appealed the decision of 21 August 2008, but their appeal was rejected by the Kostanai Regional Court on 2 December 2008. On 23 December 2008, the complainant’s counsel requested the Kostanai Regional Court to review the decisions of 21 August and 2 December 2008 within supervisory review proceedings. This request was dismissed as unfounded on 12 January 2009. Thereafter, a complaint concerning the lower courts’ decisions was submitted within the supervisory review proceedings to the Supreme Court; but it was dismissed on 9 June 2009 as manifestly ill-founded. 4.3 The State party maintains that the complainant’s claims under articles 1; 2; 12; 13; 14; 15 and 16 of the Convention against Torture are inadmissible as the allegations 6