CAT/C/52/D/478/2011 5.2 With regard to the State party’s submission that he had lost his “victim” status because he had been awarded compensation, the complainant emphasizes that he had to file a civil law suit in order to obtain the compensation and that the issue of opening a criminal investigation into his allegations of torture falls outside the jurisdiction of the civil courts. Furthermore, the civil court decision did not declare that torture or degrading treatment had taken place in violation of article 21, paragraph 2, of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The complainant further maintains that the State party violated its obligation under article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention to ensure that all acts of torture are viewed as offences under its criminal law. In addition, he maintains that the State party violated his rights under articles 14 and 15 of the Convention. 5.3 With regard to the State party’s submission that his communication was inadmissible because it had been reviewed and rejected by the European Court of Human Rights, the complainant submits that in 2010 he addressed an application to the European Court regarding violations of his right to defence because of the inadequate legal assistance provided by his defence attorney. He submits that he was informed in a letter dated 18 August 2010 that his application had been registered with the number 47448/10 and was subsequently informed in a letter dated 24 September 2010 that his application had been rejected. The complainant points out that the last decision of Avtozavodsky District Court relating to his detention in the temporary confinement ward entered into force on 21 August 2009 and that his application was not submitted to the European Court until 7 June 2010, and therefore, even if it was on the same subject, it would have been rejected since it was submitted after the six-month deadline. 5.4 With regard to the State party’s submission that the communication is not sufficiently substantiated and constitutes an abuse of the right of submission, the complainant notes that the State party does not address the substance of his complaint, namely the refusal by its authorities to recognize that he had been subjected to torture and the refusal to initiate a criminal investigation into his allegations. He maintains that he has substantiated his allegations and makes reference to the decision of Samara District Court on his civil claim for moral damages. State party’s further observations 6.1 On 17 August 2012, the State party reiterated its submission regarding the criminal charges and conviction against the complainant. It reiterates that his “arguments” that the investigating officers had used unlawful methods of investigation were “verified” by the court and could not be confirmed, since they were “refuted” by the “body of evidence” reviewed by the court. The State party further reiterates the content of the 5 December 2008 decision of Samara District Court (see para. 4.1 supra). It further states that on 27 December 2008, an investigating officer from the Tolyatti Investigative Committee issued a ruling refusing the initiation of a criminal prosecution against the person who held the position of head of the temporary confinement ward at the time of the complainant’s detention. It maintains that the investigation revealed that the complainant and his accomplice would be killed if they were transferred to the regular pretrial detention facility, because their crimes had affected the interests of organized crime groups. 6.2 In response to the complainant’s statement that he still considers himself a victim of violations of the Convention, the State party submits that the domestic civil court ruled in his favour, and that in determining the size of the compensation, the court took into consideration not only the “degree of guilt” of the perpetrator and “other relevant circumstances” but also the degree of physical and moral suffering “connected with the plaintiff's individual characteristics” and the requirements of reasonableness and justice. 6.3 In response to the complainant’s allegation of a violation of article 4, paragraph 1, by the State party, the latter submits that article 117 of its Criminal Code defines torture and 5