CCPR/C/125/D/2322/2013 4.3 As the author’s complaint is still being considered by the domestic authorities, the State party submits that the author has not exhausted all available domestic legal remedies, and therefore finds the Committee’s consideration of the communication to be premature. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 In a letter dated 27 June 2014, the author commented on the observations of the State party. He rejects the State party’s assertion that he has not exhausted all available domestic legal remedies. He notes that the fact that the courts found investigations into his beatings to be incomplete and investigators’ refusal to open criminal case unlawful, only to have the prosecutor’s office repeatedly refuse to open criminal proceedings, shows that the domestic remedies were ineffective. He notes that between 2007 and 2014, the domestic authorities refused six times to open a criminal case into his beatings. The author submits that the investigations have been prolonged with no grounds and deliberately put off, while certain investigative procedures were not performed on time. He refers to the decision of the Nizhegorodsky region investigation department of 4 March 2014 to revoke the refusal to open a criminal case of 1 March 2012, and submits that this decision called for a number of investigative actions. However, these actions have been ineffective, as evidenced by the refusal of 9 April 2014, because the forensic medical expert failed to provide any clarifications concerning his medical examination of the author performed on 19 February 2009, the surgeon who initially treated the author in 2007 testified that he had quit his job seven years previously and could not recall any events related to the case, and all the registers containing records of the inmates in the detention facility where the author was initially held were destroyed in 2010. 5.2 The author submits that, despite the refusal of 9 April 2014, he again appealed to the head of the Nizhegorodsky region investigation department, addressing the discrepancies between the testimonies of the police officers provided during the trial in 2007 and their testimonies provided during the investigations of the author’s complaint, including the latest one in 2014. The discrepancies concerned the circumstances of the author’s detention, the way the injuries were caused and how they were reflected in the official documents. 5.3 The author submits that there exists an administrative practice of using torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in the State party, which makes theoretically available domestic legal remedies ineffective. He considers that the lack of an effective examination of the circumstances of his detention shows that the national authorities have decided to cover up the crimes committed by the police. State party’s additional observations 6.1 In a note verbale dated 15 October 2014, the State party noted that on 7 May 2014, an investigation into the author’s complaint had resulted in a refusal to open a criminal case against the police officers who had detained him while he tried to sell a narcotic substance. The State party submits that there are no discrepancies in the testimonies of the police officers and that they do not deny using physical force against the author, who was detained while committing a crime and tried to flee the crime scene. On the other hand, the author himself has changed his testimony concerning the events of 14 June 2007. Initially, he said that he was detained while trying to run from the police while on 22 June 2007, he complained that he had been assaulted by the arresting officers. On 8 December 2007, the author again stated that he had received the injuries while trying to flee the police. The forensic medical examination concluded that the author had bruises and haemorrhage of soft tissue on his face that did not cause harm to his health. The State party submits that all of the above indicates that no excessive force was used against the author at the time of his detention. 6.2 The State party considers that, despite long investigations and the numerous times the decisions to refuse to open a criminal case into the alleged beatings were revoked, it has been established that the police officers did not exceed their authority and that there were no grounds for their criminal prosecution. At the same time, the 7 May 2014 decision refusing to open a criminal case was itself revoked by the Kstovo city prosecutor’s office; therefore, the State party submits that the investigation is still ongoing and that the author thus has not exhausted the available domestic remedies. 4