CAT/C/50/D/479/2011 6.6 According to the forensic-medical expert’s examination of 7 May 2002, a wound was revealed on the complainant’s left knee, but it was impossible to establish its exact causes, as it could have been inflicted by a rounded or sharp object, by high or low temperature or by chemical substances. In this connection, the State party observes that neither the complainant, nor his counsel challenged the conclusions of this forensic report. 6.7 On 8 May 2002, the complainant’s mother and his counsel complained to the Moscow Region Prosecutor’s Office about the alleged ill-treatment. 6.8 During an interrogation of 20 May 2002, Mr. Ya. again incriminated the complainant, whereas on 21 and 28 May 2002, the complainant reiterated that the crimes were, in fact, committed by Mr. Ya. The complainant did not complain that he had been subjected to any ill-treatment on these last two occasions. 6.9 On 28 June 2002, the Prosecutor’s Office adopted a decision not to initiate criminal proceedings concerning the complainant’s allegations of ill-treatment, as they were not confirmed. 6.10 On 10 September 2002, the complainant was interrogated, but in the course of interrogation, he did not complain about having been subjected to ill-treatment. On 14 September 2002, Mr. Ya. reiterated his statements that the crimes were committed by the complainant, while on 17 September 2002, the complainant claimed that he did not commit the crimes he had been charged with and pointed to Mr. Ya. as the culprit. He reiterated the same also on 17 October 2002. The complainant did not complain about any ill-treatment, neither on 17 September 2002, nor on 17 October 2002. 6.11 During the trial, the complainant’s counsel requested the Moscow Regional Court to take into account the results established by the forensic medical examinations of 18 April 2002 and of 7 May 2002; the court dismissed the request. 6.12 The State party notes that neither in the framework of the cassation proceedings nor within the supervisory review proceedings did the complainant ever mention the he had been subjected to ill-treatment during the pretrial investigation with the aim to force him to confess guilt concerning Ms. I.B.’s disappearance. 6.13 Finally, the State party notes that neither during the pretrial investigation nor during the proceedings before the courts did the complainant confess guilt in the crimes he had been charged with. The complainant’s further comments 7.1 On 22 June 2012, the complainant reiterated extensively his previous submissions, in particular regarding alleged procedural shortcomings and during the court trial. 7.2 He reiterates that as a result of his ill-treatment in the Chekhov District Police Station, he confessed that Ms. I.B. was on his bus on 15 April 2002. He also maintains that he was ill-treated in the Serpukhov city prison. 7.3 On 23 July 2012, the complainant added that he has exhausted all the available domestic remedies. In particular, within the cassation proceedings and the supervisory proceedings, the complainant indicated that he had been subjected to ill-treatment in order to force him to confess guilt. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering a claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 6