CCPR/C/125/D/2322/2013 additional investigation, witness K confirmed her previous testimony that she did not see anyone beating the author. Also, she rejected the testimony given by witness S with regard to the detention of the author. The additional investigation has also revealed that the place where the author was detained was out of sight of the place where the witnesses were supposedly standing. 8.4 The State party submits that the author has not appealed the refusal to open a criminal case against police officers dated 10 October 2014; thus, he has not exhausted all available domestic legal remedies, making his communication to the Committee inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. From the author 9.1 In a letter dated 9 June 2015, the author provided his comments to the State party’s further observations. He rejects the State party’s assertion that the place where he was detained was out of sight of the location of the two witnesses. He submits that both witnesses were questioned by the representatives of the NGO “Committee against Torture” and copies of their written testimonies were submitted to the Committee with the initial communication. Witness S was also asked to draw a map of the area where she was standing at the time of the author’s detention and her hand-drawn map correctly showed the exact location where the author was detained, thus confirming that she had been able to see that spot. 9.2 The author notes that even though there are some inconsistencies between the testimonies of witness S and witness K, they do not refute each other and match chronologically and in their description of the appearance of the detaining police officers. At the same time, the testimonies of the police officers contradict not only testimonies of other witnesses but also each other, and have changed over time. 9.3 The author further rejects the State party’s claim that he has not met with representatives of the NGO “Committee against Torture” since 2007 and has not given them a power of attorney to represent him before the Committee, and submits a new power of attorney authorizing four members of the NGO “Committee against Torture”, including Ekaterina Vanslova, to represent him before the Committee. From the State party 10.1 In a note verbale dated 21 December 2015, the State party notes that, with regard to the testimony of witness S, it has been determined that she is a good friend of the author’s sister, and her testimony contradicts the testimony of the author. In particular, she testified that the author was assaulted by four men, while the author admits that he was apprehended by only two men. The State party also notes that witness S has refused to take a polygraph test. The State party submits that the other witness, K, has not confirmed the testimony of witness S and instead stated that she had seen a police officer chasing the author but did not see police officers beating him. With regard to the testimonies of the police officers, the State party submits that they do not contradict each other and that the officers do not deny using combat Sambo techniques in apprehending the author when he tried to escape. According to the State party, the police officers were questioned on 10 and 11 June 2015 by a polygraph specialist, who concluded that the information provided by them about the circumstances of the author’s apprehension was reliable. The State party submits that the information given indicates that the measures used to apprehend the author did not violate the law and, in accordance with article 38 (1) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, infliction of harm on a person who has committed a crime during his/her apprehension is exempt from criminal responsibility. 4 10.2 The State party notes that, despite the lengthy duration of the investigation and the numerous times that the refusals to open a criminal case against the police were revoked, 4 6 Article 38 of the Criminal Code states: “1. The infliction of harm on a person who has committed a crime during his detention or during his delivery to the authorities, or in thwarting the possibility of the commission by him of further offences, shall not be deemed a crime unless it was possible to detain such person by other means and there was an excess of the measures taken for this detention.”