CCPR/C/125/D/2322/2013 the authorities have not been able to establish grounds for a criminal prosecution of the police officers. On 1 October 2015, the additional investigation of the officers’ conduct resulted in a refusal to open a criminal case. The State party submits that, at present, the results of the latest additional investigation are under review by the Investigation Committee of the Russian Federation. Therefore, the author has not exhausted all available domestic remedies, and the Committee’s consideration of the communication seems premature. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 11.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 11.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 11.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim that he has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to him. It also notes the State party’s claim that the investigation into the author’s claims is ongoing before the Investigation Committee of the Russian Federation and thus the author has not exhausted all available domestic remedies. However, the Committee observes that more than 11 years have passed since the Kstovo district prosecutor’s office investigator first refused to open a criminal case against the police officers, and during that time the investigation into the author’s allegations was repeatedly reopened by the higher officer in the prosecutor’s office and subsequently closed. The Committee observes that in the present case the application of remedies has been unreasonably prolonged and, therefore, considers that it is not prevented by virtue of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the communication. 11.4 In the Committee’s view, the author has sufficiently substantiated his claim under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant, for the purposes of admissibility. It therefore declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 12.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 12.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that while being apprehended on 14 June 2007 he was punched and kicked in the head by several police officers, causing him to lose consciousness several times. The author also claims that he sustained injuries to his spleen, lungs and shoulder, had headaches and dizziness, and that the doctor’s examination later revealed injuries to the soft facial tissue and nose and hypodermic hematoma in both eye sockets, which is consistent with the description of the beatings given by the author. The Committee notes that the use of force by the police, which can be justified in certain circumstances, may be viewed as contrary to article 7 under circumstances in which the force used is deemed excessive.5 The Committee also notes the State party’s observation that, at the time of his detention, the author offered active resistance to the police by trying to escape arrest and one of the police officers had to use combat Sambo techniques to subdue him, as a result of which the above-mentioned injuries were caused. The Committee refers to paragraph 4 of the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (1990), which states that law enforcement officials, in carrying out their duty, shall, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force. Where injury or death is caused by the use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials, they shall report the incident promptly to their superiors (para. 6). Governments shall ensure that arbitrary or abusive use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials 5 See, A.H.G. v. Canada (CCPR/C/113/D/2091/2011), appendix II, para. 3. 7