CCPR/C/120/D/2209/2012 5.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another international procedure of investigation or settlement. 5.3 Regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee recalls that the State party has a duty not only to carry out thorough investigations of alleged violations of human rights brought to the attention of its authorities, particularly violations of the right to life, but also to prosecute, try and punish anyone held to be responsible for such violations.20 The Committee notes the author’s submission that the Attorney General, who is the head of the prosecutorial authorities, has demonstrated the intention to block the investigation of the crime and eventual prosecution of the accused police officers, despite the significant evidence pointing to the commission of a crime against his brother. It also notes the author’s submission that no remedy is available to him to challenge the decision of the Attorney General not to take any further action. 5.4 The Committee further notes the author’s submission that court proceedings before the Court of Appeal have been pending since 2011, that no remedies are available to accelerate the pace of the proceedings in the present matter and that any remedy that might theoretically be provided in the Court of Appeal would be unduly prolonged. The Committee also recalls its jurisprudence that, when a complaint against ill-treatment contrary to article 7 is lodged, a State party is under a duty to promptly and impartially investigate it.21 The Committee notes that, in spite of four reminders having been addressed to the State party, no information or observations challenging the admissibility of the communication have been received. In the circumstances, the Committee finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 5.5 The Committee considers that the author’s allegations under articles 6, 7 and 9, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, have been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and proceeds with its consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 6.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee notes the author’s statements that, on 13 August 2010 at 8.30 p.m., his brother was arrested by two police officers of the Kirindiwela police; that, according to an eyewitness, he was hit with a rod and held by the chin and the neck, that his head was struck twice against the door of the police vehicle and that he was then put into a police vehicle, in which he was severely kicked and his head beaten with iron rods; and that, on 14 August 2010, he died at the National Hospital in Colombo. 6.3 The Committee also notes the author’s submission that, according to the Kirindiwela police, his brother had died from injuries allegedly received while attempting to jump out of a moving police vehicle, after being arrested by the two police officers for being drunk and obstructing traffic. 6.4 The Committee takes note of the author’s statement that the magistrate considered that the external injuries on the body of his brother and the confirmation in the toxicology report that there had been no alcohol in the blood sample of the victim at the time of his death were not consistent with the police officer’s version of events. It also notes the magistrate’s conclusion that the evidence before him was suggestive of a homicide and that, nonetheless, the Solicitor General decided not to proceed with the criminal prosecution of the police officers. 20 21 See, for example, communications No. 2157/2012, Belamrania v. Algeria, Views adopted on 27 October 2016, para. 5.3; and No. 1791/2008, Boudjemai v. Algeria, Views adopted on 22 March 2013, para. 7.4. See Kornetov v. Uzbekistan (note 14 above), para. 7.1. See also general comment No. 20 (1992), para. 14. 7