CCPR/C/119/D/2359/2014 5.4 The State party contends that the authors have raised no complaints alleging torture or ill-treatment. However, the authors submit that their relatives complained 4 to the authorities about the torture suffered by the authors at the hands of law enforcement officers. In response to these complaints, the authorities only responded that they had identified no violations.5 On 16 December 2010, Mr. Erbabaev complained during the court hearings that National Security Service officers had tortured him in detention. 6 Mr. Davudov complained that he had been beaten by officers. The court and the prosecutor’s office chose to ignore these complaints. 5.5 In addition, a group of human rights defenders met with the Prosecutor General of Kyrgyzstan on 11 August 2011.7 During the meeting, they complained about the authors’ illegal detention and the use of force during their arrest. The State party did not conduct an investigation into those claims.8 5.6 The authors further submit that the court hearing to determine pretrial detention measures was held in the offices of the National Security Service. During these so-called hearings, the prosecutor who asked the judge to detain the authors pending trial hit Mr. Saidarov in the stomach and the back. Given this atmosphere of fear, the authors realized that it was futile and dangerous to complain about torture to the very people who tortured them. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 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. 6.3 The Committee considers that the State party does not directly challenge the admissibility of the present communication, but notes its argument that the authors raised no complaints with the national courts and authorities relating to torture and ill-treatment. The Committee observes that the authors provided copies of complaints regarding torture and ill-treatment submitted by their relatives to the domestic authorities, and notes that the State party did not investigate these claims promptly and impartially. Additionally, one of the authors, Mr. Erbabaev, complained during the court hearings about the torture he had suffered at the hands of National Security Service officers. Accordingly, in the absence of any clear and coherent arguments from the State party regarding the admissibility of the present communication, the Committee concludes that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from considering the communication. 6.4 The Committee has noted the authors’ claims under articles 14 (3) (d) and 26 of the Covenant. In the absence of any further pertinent information on file, however, the Committee considers that the authors have failed to sufficiently substantiate these claims for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, it declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 The Committee considers that the authors have sufficiently substantiated, for the purposes of admissibility, their remaining claims under article 7, read in conjunction with 4 5 6 7 8 The authors have submitted copies of these letters. The authors have provided copies of the letters from the State party authorities. Copies of court records show that Mr. Erbabaev claimed during the hearing that he had been beaten. The names of the human rights defenders have not been provided. The authors have submitted a copy of the authorities’ responses to these complaints, addressed to relatives of the authors: (1) to Ms. Erbabaeva dated 26 July 2010, and (2) one addressed jointly to Ms. Vasilova, Ms. Saidarova, and Ms. Erbabaeva, dated 12 August 2010. The authorities deny any illtreatment, pressure or violations of procedural rules. 5