CAT/C/52/D/497/2012 concerning his ill-treatment aimed at obtaining his forced confessions are not corroborated by any evidence and, therefore, are unfounded. 4.4 The State party notes that the complainant confessed guilt during the pre-trial investigation. The complainant and B. both admitted that they decided to rob the shop in question on 28 June 2008. On the same day, they entered the shop, B. ordered the shopkeeper to lie on the ground and they stole 36,000 tenge and three bottles of beer. However, later in the course of the pre-trial investigation, both co-accused changed their initial confessions and started denying any involvement in the robbery. The State party further notes that the complainant’s guilt was duly established during the criminal proceedings and in court. The court also examined his allegations of ill-treatment during the pre-trial investigation, but found them to be groundless. In this connection, the State party points out the statements of the victims and several witnesses confirming that the complainant and B. did rob the shop on 28 June 2008. It also points out that during the court proceedings, the police officers K. and O. testified that the complainant, voluntarily, and in the presence of his counsel, confessed to having committed the robbery, and he also confessed guilt during a cross-examination between him and the victims. 4.5 The State party further rejects as ill-founded the claims on ineffective and prolonged investigation regarding the complainant’s alleged ill-treatment and the authorities’ failure to ensure compensation for harm caused by officials. It reiterates that on 11 May 2010, the Department of Internal Affairs of the Kostanai Region received the mother’s complaint about the complainant’s ill-treatment by the CDIA. During the pre-investigation examination, on 14 May 2010, the complainant requested to terminate any further investigation into his mother’s complaint, as he had not been subjected to ill-treatment; he did not contest the court’s judgment and the sentence and he had no claims against anyone. Consequently, on 17 May 2010, the investigator T.V. of the RDIA decided not to initiate criminal proceedings as a decision refusing to institute proceedings had already been adopted in that regard and it had not been quashed. The complainant’s mother’s previous complaints were examined, but were not confirmed. Consequently, a number of decisions were adopted refusing to initiate criminal proceedings. All decisions were adopted within the time limits as set out in national laws. 4.6 As to the issue of redress, the State party points out that under article 42 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when a court decides to partly or fully rehabilitate a person, the institution responsible for performing criminal proceedings is obliged to acknowledge that person’s right to compensation. A partly or fully rehabilitated person is personally informed of the court’s decision and s/he is informed of the procedure for compensation of damages. In this connection, the State party notes that the national authorities established that the complainant was not subjected to any physical or psychological ill-treatment. Moreover, the courts did not acquit him, nor was a decision adopted to terminate the initiated criminal proceedings against him or to annul any decision adopted within the criminal proceedings, as unlawful. Therefore, there were no grounds for compensating him. 4.7 The State party maintains that the complainant’s claims that he did not have access to effective domestic remedies and that his forced confession was used by the court as evidence are manifestly ill-founded. The complainant and his defence appealed all judicial decisions adopted in his case, up to the Supreme Court. In particular, the Rudny City Court of the Kostanai Region concluded that, inter alia, the complainant’s confessions, as well as investigation actions confirming his participation in the robbery on 28 June 2008, were permissible and acceptable, and that the aggregated evidence as a whole was sufficient to establish his guilt in the robbery. In addition, the judgment of 21 August 2008 of the Rudny City Court of the Kostanai Region was based not only on the complainant’s confession, but also on a multitude of other evidence, all examined by the court. 7