CCPR/C/116/D/2231/2012 serious conditions. During his detention, he suffered repeated beatings, which resulted in an array of brain, visual and hearing injuries. The author is also in poor psychological condition. Despite these continuing health issues, the State party refuses to provide critical medication, tests or treatment. The prison doctors have not even provided the necessary tests to determine the appropriate treatment. State party’s additional observations 6.1 In a communication dated 11 June 2014, the State party submits that the investigation into the author’s claims had been impartial and complete. More than 100 witnesses who were questioned in the process confirmed that the author’s claims regarding beatings, torture and other mistreatment were unfounded. 6.2 The State party submits that the author was indeed questioned on 15 June 2010, from 4.45 p.m. until 7.15 p.m. On 16 June, at 9 a.m., he was officially arrested as a suspect. The investigation could not ascertain the author’s whereabouts after his initial questioning on 15 June until his arrest on 16 June. The decision of the Bazar-Korgon District Court regarding the author’s detention was issued on 17 June, at 6.30 p.m. Therefore, even if the author’s claims were true, his detention was formalized within 48 hours. 6.3 The trial of the author at all three instances was carried out in strict compliance with the requirements of the criminal procedure of the State party. All defendants, including the author, were assisted by qualified defence lawyers. The author was defended by two lawyers, Mr. Toktakunov and Mr. Abylakimov. The lawyers had the same rights as the prosecution, including the right to call additional witnesses. As is evident from the investigation records and the trial transcripts, the lawyers did not request that additional witnesses be called. 6.4 On 7 September 2010, one of the lawyers, Mr. Toktakunov, orally requested the court to request the presence of two witnesses, A.A. and I.I. However, as was explained to the lawyer, it was up to the defence to secure the presence of additional witnesses. The lawyer’s request was therefore denied.15 6.5 The author seems to challenge the veracity of the statements made by the prosecutors and court officials. The prosecutor’s office is independent of the police force. According to the law, the court is the only body that admits evidence, and makes impartial decisions based on that evidence. On the other hand, the evidence presented by lawyers to the Committee was never presented during the investigation or at the trial. Since the witnesses who gave this evidence are either relatives or neighbours of Mr. Askarov, the veracity of their statements raises doubts. 6.6 For example, the statement by the author’s brother that he was detained together with the author, was beaten up and tortured was not confirmed when he was examined by a prosecutor of the Zhalal-Abad prosecutor’s office. The records of the detention centre show that the author’s brother was not present in the detention centre. The head of the detention centre at that time, K.T., confirmed that the author’s brother was not detained at the time in question. 6.7 The author seems to discredit the findings of doctors at the Central Hospital of the penitentiary system and to trust only the conclusions of Dr. Crosby. Upon registration at the hospital, the author was thoroughly examined. The X-ray that was conducted on 19 November 2010 showed broken ribs, but the date of the injury could not be determined. On 15 12 The investigative group questioned one of the witnesses, I.I., in 2013. The witness stated that he was not familiar with the author.