CCPR/C/116/D/2231/2012 4.37 The State party concludes that, in general, none of the author’s claims of beatings and torture were confirmed. The author’s interest in pursuing these claims is to relieve himself of criminal responsibility. Three psychiatrists examined the author and concluded that he was “a liar; an obsequious person” and that the author used lies to mislead international organizations. The author further claims that his criminal prosecution was motivated by revenge on the part of the law enforcement agencies for his alleged role in the killing of the police officer. 4.38 The fact that the author tells lies is confirmed by the testimonies of more than 100 witnesses, among them many law enforcement officers, members of the judiciary, employees of the penitentiary systems, doctors and others. It has been shown that the author received proper medical care when it was necessary. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 Commenting on the State party’s observations, the author submits that the State party’s submission fails to address his claims. The State party focuses on interviewing police officers and prosecution and court officials, without even questioning the author or his representatives. It is not surprising that the State party concludes in its report that the author’s allegations were not confirmed. 5.2 At the same time, the State party attempts to impugn the author by attacking and discrediting his work as a human rights defender, denying that the alleged violations ever occurred and calling the author “a liar”. 5.3 The State party does not address the author’s claims, but instead challenges the witness statements that were included in the communication. The State party also ignores the medical evidence produced by an independent expert, and instead relies only on the State-sponsored medical examination, which was rejected by independent medical experts as being “incompetent” or “misleading”. 5.4 The State party’s response takes at face value testimonies and statements made by government officials involved in the author’s torture, while dismissing the author’s account as untrue. The author has provided a compelling and consistent account of his ill-treatment. For example, in late June 2010, the author gave three visiting employees of the Office of the Ombudsman a written statement regarding the beatings that he had suffered, and he spoke to the Ombudsman by phone. The State party disregards this pattern of consistency and, moreover, never interviewed the Ombudsman as part of its investigation. 5.5 The State party fails to consider that the statements made by the author to the authorities that he was not tortured were made under extreme duress. The statements were made in response to further threats of torture and threats of abuse against others. The communication describes at least four separate incidents where the author showed visible signs of “extensive physical injuries” in the presence of officials, who had an obligation to investigate and determine their origin. 5.6 On 16 June 2010, the State party issued a press release stating that the author had no injuries. However, the next day, the author had visible bruises on his face and back. On 22 June, Mr. Toktakunov took photographs of the author’s heavily bruised back and showed the photographs to the prosecutor in charge of the case. Shortly after the first day of the author’s trial, 2 September 2010, he was visited by A. Abdirasulova, head of the human rights organization Kylym Shamy, and by the Deputy Minister of the Interior, Mr. Alymbekov. Mr. Abdirasulova saw bruises on the author’s face. On 6 September, the author appeared in court with a visible bruise under his left eye. 5.7 The author reiterates that he was arbitrarily detained, without registration, for almost 24 hours on 15 June 2010. The State party claims that the author was initially questioned as 10