CCPR/C/116/D/2231/2012 does not concern the claims of the author regarding alleged violations by the State party of the author’s rights under several articles of the Covenant. Regarding these claims, the Committee notes that the author has successfully exhausted all available domestic remedies, including the supervisory appeal filed with the Supreme Court of Kyrgyzstan on 22 November 2010.16 On 20 December, the Supreme Court upheld the verdict handed down by the lower courts. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from considering the communication. 7.4 Regarding the author’s claims under article 14 (1), (2) and (5) of the Covenant, the Committee notes that the author has failed to provide any elements to demonstrate that the State party violated his right to a fair trial, presumption of innocence and right to appeal. In the absence of additional pertinent information on file, the Committee concludes that the author’s claims under article 14 (1), (2) and (5) of the Covenant have not been sufficiently substantiated. Accordingly, it declares that part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.5 As to the alleged violation of the author’s rights under articles 2, 19 and 26 of the Covenant, the Committee considers that the author has failed to provide sufficient information and factual support, and therefore has failed to substantiate his claims that he was persecuted because of his activities as a human rights defender or his Uzbek ethnicity. In the circumstances, and in the absence of any further pertinent information on file, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate these claims for the purposes of admissibility and declares that part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.6 The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated his claims under article 7, read separately and in conjunction with article 2 (3), and articles 9 (1), 10 (1) and 14 (3) (b) and (e) of the Covenant for the purposes of admissibility, and therefore proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee first takes into consideration the author’s allegations that he was, on a number of occasions, tortured and otherwise mistreated. The Committee notes that the findings of the medical forensic examinations conducted by independent experts are consistent with other evidence suggesting that the author was subjected to acts of torture. The Committee also notes that the State party, having questioned more than 100 witnesses (most of them police officers, court officials or prosecutors), concludes simply that the author’s allegations “have not been confirmed”. The Committee further notes that the author was held at the same police station in Bazar-Korgon where the deceased police officer had worked, which increased the risk of ill-treatment, and that no specific security measures were taken to safeguard the author. The Committee considers that, in the circumstances of the present case, and in particular in the light of the State party’s inability to explain the visible signs of mistreatment that were witnessed on a number of occasions, due weight should be given to the author’s allegations. 8.3 Regarding the State party’s obligation to properly investigate the author’s torture claims, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which criminal investigation and consequential prosecution are necessary remedies for violations of human rights such 16 14 On 27 January 2011, the author filed an addendum to his appeal through his lawyer, Mr. Toktakunov.