CCPR/C/130/D/2820/2016 Criminal Procedure, entitled “Release from criminal liability by imposition of an administrative sanction”, which excludes the figure of the private prosecutor and the civil claimant. It argues that, indisputably, the civil action brought by the author was subject to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law, as required under article 14 (1) of the Covenant. According to the State party, the position of the author that the fulfilment of the effective remedy requirement is conditional on a specific outcome renders the communication inadmissible, given that such an interpretation would be in contradiction with the fundamental principles of the equality of citizens, equal rights of parties and “uncovering of the objective truth though the criminal procedure”. 4.10 The State party concludes that the author’s allegations of a violation of article 7 of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), and of article 14 (1) of the Covenant are unfounded. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 In his comments of 5 June 2017, the author submitted that, contrary to the State party’s assertion, the communication should be declared admissible, because he had exhausted all available domestic remedies. The author argues that the decision of the appeals tribunal was final, as stated in its decision. He explains that article 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure limits the scope of the review in cassation. According to that article, second-instance judgments that uphold first-instance decisions are not subject to appeal to the Supreme Court of Cassation. 5.2 The author observes that the State party does not dispute that the violence exerted on him was of an intensity and nature falling within the scope of article 7 of the Covenant and that it was caused by representatives of the State party, police officers, who used physical force and equipment resulting in several injuries to the author in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 5.3 As to the conduct of the investigation and the State party’s assertion that he did not submit any request during the pretrial proceedings, the author recalls that the investigation was initiated as a result of his requests to the Director of the District Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior in Kardzhali and the Regional Military Prosecutor’s Office in Plovdiv. He points out that, according to the Code of Criminal Procedure, pretrial proceedings take place exclusively on the initiative of the investigative bodies and that, in that phase of the criminal proceedings, the victim has only the procedural status of a witness. According to article 75 (1) of the Code, the victim has the right to be informed about the course of the investigation and to receive protection for his or her safety. The victim only has the right to appeal against the acts that result from the end or termination of the proceedings. The author notes that the prosecutor’s office adopted as true the author’s allegations of violence against him, given that, following the investigation, it filed an indictment in court against the two police officers and maintained the charges against them in all court proceedings. In consequence, it cannot be argued that the author failed to act in the exercise of his rights under the law or that he contributed to the ineffectiveness of the investigation. 5.4 The author disagrees with the State party’s contention that, because the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the two police officers ended with the imposition of disciplinary penalties, the author’s claim that the investigation was ineffective is ill-founded. He reiterates that the investigation of his allegations of the abuse suffered at the hands of the police officers was inefficient, because he did not have effective access during the preliminary procedure and because he could not participate in the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Cassation that annulled the sentence of the Military Court of Appeal. He notes that the State party has not contested that point and that that led in practice to his being deprived of compensation for moral damages granted by the Military Court of Appeal in its final decision. 7