CCPR/C/116/D/2231/2012 17 November 2011, the author underwent echo- and electrocardiograms and was examined by a cardiologist. Those tests identified no “pathological changes”. 6.8 Regarding the headaches experienced by the author, the doctors conducted an echoencephalography examination and did not find any issues. The same is true for a visual test conducted on 31 October 2011 and 14 October 2012. Therefore, the author’s conditions were examined by several doctors but no pathological changes were identified. 6.9 The State party reiterates its position that it provided all the necessary security measures for the court hearings. The victims and relatives of the deceased police officer were warned about keeping order in the courtroom. The State party further confirms that it collected a vast body of evidence that proved the author’s guilt, including statements by nine police officers who witnessed the author’s calls to kill the officer. Additional law enforcement officers — eight in total — testified that they had observed the author at the scene of the killing of the police officer. 6.10 The State party further denies that the author was tortured or beaten while in detention. That there was no ill-treatment is confirmed not only by police officers, but also by his relatives and the human rights defenders who visited the author. Furthermore, while in detention, the author did not request any medical assistance. Regarding a bruise under his left eye, the author himself submitted a letter to the judge on 2 September 2010 stating that he had accidentally bumped into a cellmate’s head. 6.11 Additional claims by Ms. Abdirasulova that she saw signs of torture on the author also raise doubts. Ms. Abdirasulova did not file any complaints at the time, and submitted her report only with the present communication to the Committee. The State party argues that it did in fact question the author, on 10 July and 18 July 2013, with the participation of the author’s lawyer, Mr. Vakhitov. 6.12 The State party submits that on 5 February 2014, the Deputy Prosecutor General of Kyrgyzstan refused to continue the investigation because of newly discovered evidence. The decision was appealed by Mr. Vakhitov to the Oktyabrsk District Court in Bishkek. In his appeal, the lawyer asked the court to order the Prosecutor General to continue the investigation. The State party therefore concludes that the author has not yet exhausted all available domestic remedies. 6.13 The State party further reiterates its position that the author and his lawyers were provided with all the necessary facilities in preparation for the trial and that the court and police officers provided the necessary security measures. Furthermore, upon the author’s conviction, he was provided with all the necessary medical assistance and treatment. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 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. 7.3 The Committee notes that the State party claims that the author failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies as, at the time of the State party’s most recent submission, the author’s appeal to the Oktyabrsk District Court was still pending. The Committee notes, however, that the latest appeal concerns the refusal by the Office of the Prosecutor General to continue the investigation on the basis of newly discovered evidence or circumstances. It 13