CAT/C/50/D/479/2011 communication should also be declared inadmissible pursuant article 22, paragraph 5 (a) of the Convention, as the Committee does not consider any communication which has been or is being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 5 April 2012, the complainant reiterated that he was found guilty based on his confession obtained under duress. His counsel requested the Moscow Regional Court to take into account that, even if the forensic medical examination of 18 April 2002 established no injuries on him, an injury was established on him by the forensic medical examination of 7 May 2002, but the court dismissed this request. He also points out that the forensic medical examination of 7 May 2002 was performed on him 18 days after the date when he was subjected to ill-treatment, and when his injuries had already started to heal. In his opinion, by delaying his medical examination in 2002, the authorities had tried to hinder the investigation of his complaint of ill-treatment. 5.2 The complainant further extensively challenges the manner the courts interpreted the facts and evidence in the criminal case and enumerates alleged procedural shortcoming that took place during the trial. 5.3 Finally, he contends that his application to the European Court of Human Rights was dismissed because of non-compliance with the six months’ time limit (article 35 of the European Convention). The State party’s further observations 6.1 By its Note Verbale of 22 May 2012, the State party added that, on 16 April 2002, Mr. B. had informed the police that his daughter had gone missing. On the same date, the complainant was summoned to the Chekhov District Police Station. He explained that at the end of his last bus ride the previous day, all passengers had gotten off at the last bus stop and that, on his way to the bus park, his bus broke. After he repaired it, he drove to the bus park, where a man was waiting for him to inquire about his daughter’s whereabouts. 6.2 The State party further explained in detail the procedure prescribed by the national legislation in force at the material time regarding decisions to arrest and detain a person. 6.3 It adds that on 17 April 2002, the complainant was arrested as a murder suspect. According to the criminal case file materials, he was explained his right not to testify against himself. On 18 April 2002, he was interrogated, and during the interrogation, he did not complain about ill-treatment whatsoever. On the same date, a forensic-medical examination was performed on him, and no injuries were established on the complainant. On 19 April 2002, during the search of the complainant’s house, no complaints about the ill-treatment were received either from the complainant’s mother or from the complainant himself. On 20 April 2002, the complainant’s counsel requested to perform another forensic-medical examination on the complainant. The request was satisfied on 22 April 2002. On the same date, during another interrogation, the complainant did not confess guilt and stated that it was one Mr. Ya. who had raped and murdered Ms. I.B. During the said interrogation, he again did not complain about having been subjected to any ill-treatment. 6.4 On 24 April 2002, Mr. Ya. testified how exactly the complainant committed crimes against Ms. I.B. Consequently, on 26 April 2002, the complainant was charged with murder and rape (article 105, paragraph 2 (k) and article 131, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Code). 6.5 During an interrogation on 26 April 2002, the complainant again reiterated his statements of 22 April 2002 claiming that the crimes were committed by Mr. Ya.; he did not complain of ill-treatment. 5