CAT/C/52/D/497/2012 the Committee, in general, investigation of torture by the police should not be conducted by police or under its auspices. 5.4 The complainant further notes that he was questioned by the “advisory council” of the Department of Internal Affairs about his ill-treatment only after a press conference was held on 12 May 2010. He notes that he was questioned by the advisory council, on 14 May 2010, with the purpose of obtaining information for the authorities to justify the delay (21 months) regarding the investigation of his torture allegations. He submits that one day before the council’s visit, he was summoned to the “Head of the Operative Division” A.S., who told him that if he wanted to continue serving his sentence without problems, he should not complain to the council. As a result, on 14 May 2010, before the advisory council, the complainant first started to describe his ill-treatment suffered naming the police officers responsible; shortly after, however, fearing for his safety, he revoked all his previous complaints concerning his ill-treatment, contending that in fact no one ever beat him. This statement was video recorded by a representative of the advisory council and transmitted to mass media. On this occasion, he signed a statement that he had not been subjected to ill-treatment and that he had no further complaints. 5.5 On 5 May 2011, the complainant was released on parole due to his health status. He notes that only following his release, he was able to provide details regarding the context in which he made his statement of 14 May 2010, which was submitted by the State party together with its observations, whereby he revoked his ill-treatment complaints. He adds that, in particular, at the time, the Deputy Head of the Operations and Regime Work demanded that the complainant rejected all his complaints against the CDIA or he would experience “all the charms of the Colony”. He points out that he was completely dependent on the mercy of the administration of the Kushmurunskiy Colony No. 161/4, which is known for its high rate of inmate deaths and, therefore, he decided to sign the statement. 5.6 The complainant adds that he is ready to undergo a polygraph (lie detector) test concerning the ill-treatment suffered. He reiterates that every detainee is dependent on the prison administration and that he had been threatened by the Head of Operations A. and his Deputy B. and asked to revoke his complaints against the CDIA. Upon arrival at the Colony No. 161/1 on 27 December 2008, he was held in the quarantine unit for 10 days, in harsh conditions and he was ill-treated there. Thereafter, he was assigned to the squad No. 9 where his ill-treatment continued. Due to harsh conditions and poor nutrition, he got infected with tuberculosis and was placed in the Medical Unit on 12 November 2009. He was treated there until 28 October 2010; however, the health care provided was inadequate. Since his release on 5 May 2011, he is still undergoing treatment and is registered in a clinic specializing in tuberculosis. The parties’ further submissions 6.1 On 11 January 2013 and 19 June 2013, the State party reiterated that the complainant’s allegations about his ill-treatment by the police officers of the CDIA are groundless. In the context of the present complaint, the State party has not violated any provisions of the Convention and, therefore, the present communication is inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. 6.2 On 6 March 2013, the complainant noted that the State party has submitted no new information or argumentation concerning the admissibility and merits of his complaint, but merely maintains that he was not tortured while in police detention. He reiterates his previous claims, requests the Committee to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaint, and lists recommendations which the State party should be invited to implement. 9