CCPR/C/125/D/2322/2013 November 2010, the director of the Kstovo investigation department revoked the investigator’s decision of 6 August 2009 and requested further investigation. 2.7 On 18 November 2010, the investigator again decided not to open a criminal case against the police officers due to lack of a corpus delicti. On 13 February 2012, this decision was appealed to the city court of Kstovo. On 21 February 2012, the deputy city prosecutor of Kstovo informed the author’s lawyer – a member of the non-governmental organization (NGO) “Committee against Torture” – that the investigator’s decision of 18 November 2010 had been revoked and the materials sent for additional investigation. However, when the lawyer was allowed access to the materials of the investigation on 25 June 2013, he discovered that there had not been any new procedural decisions since 18 November 2010. 2.8 The author submits that since the prosecutor’s office has already refused four times to open an investigation into the beatings by the police, he has exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies. The complaint 3. The author claims that police officials assaulted him at the time of his arrest and the State party’s authorities failed to subsequently carry out an investigation into his complaints of cruel and inhuman treatment, and that these violations amount to a breach of his rights under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a), of the Covenant. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In a note verbale dated 23 April 2014, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits of the communication. The State party submits that the criminal case against the author was initiated on 15 June 2007 on charges of attempted sale of narcotic substances. By a verdict of the Kstovo city court of 10 December 2007, the author was found guilty and sentenced to six years in prison. On 31 August 2007, the case investigator reported that there had been a complaint from the author about physical force having been used against him at the time of his arrest by the police. On the same day, all materials related to the author’s detention and his complaint were sent to the Kstovo prosecutor’s office for investigation. During the investigation, it was determined that at the time of his detention, the author had shown active resistance to the police by trying to escape arrest, as a result of which one of the police officers had to use combat Sambo techniques to subdue him. The State party submits that this was confirmed by other police officers who participated in the arrest. During the trial, witness B, who participated in the search of the author after his arrest, testified that he did not notice any visible injuries. When questioned later, he confirmed that he did not remember the author’s general state of health, nor did he see any injuries. The medical examination of the author conducted on 15 June 2007 at city hospital No. 4 revealed that he had suffered injuries to his soft facial tissue and nose and hypodermic hematoma in both eye sockets. The State party notes that the trial court has determined the legality of the use of combat Sambo techniques against the author during his detention due to his resistance. During the trial, the author explained that he had initially tried to run from the police and stopped only after they had warned him to stop or they would shoot; two police officers then threw him to the ground and started punching and kicking him. 4.2 The State party notes that all appeals by the author against the refusals of the prosecutor’s office to open a criminal case have been considered and upheld by the respective courts; therefore, it considers that the author had access to effective domestic legal remedies. On 1 March 2012, the prosecutor’s office again refused to open a criminal investigation into the alleged beatings due to lack of a corpus delicti. The State party states that, in view of the new allegations made by the author to the Committee in his communication, the refusal by the prosecutor’s office of 1 March 2012 was revoked by the head of the Nizhegorodsky region investigation department on 4 March 2014. Case materials have been sent to an investigator for additional investigation, and the author will be notified of the outcome in due course. The State party notes that the additional investigation is being monitored by the Office of the General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation. 3