CCPR/C/119/D/2125/2011 sufficiently substantiated and declares it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.9 The Committee also notes the author’s complaint that article 14 (3) (d) has been violated because neither he nor his lawyers were present at the supervisory review hearing by the Supreme Court on 5 January 2010. In this regard, the Committee notes that the author has not provided the text of the supervisory appeal and the decision of the court, nor has he specified the nature and character of the hearing or indicated whether a prosecutor was present at the hearing in question. In the absence of any other information or explanation on file, the Committee concludes that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claim under article 14 (3) (d) and finds it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.10 The Committee notes the author’s allegations under article 14 (3) (e) of the Covenant in relation to the examination of evidence and of witnesses during the trial. It particularly observes the author´s disagreement with the status of experts invited by the defence and the status of their conclusions in the court. In this regard the Committee notes, from the information on file, that the judge was applying domestic law in determining the status of witnesses and of the evidence in question. The Committee recalls that it is generally for the courts of State party to the Covenant to review facts and the evidence, or the application of domestic legislation, in a particular case, unless it can be shown that such evaluation or application was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice, or that the court otherwise violated its obligation of independence and impartiality. 8 In the present case, the Committee observes, that the material before it does not allow it to conclude that the examination of the evidence and questioning of witnesses by the court reached the threshold for arbitrariness in the evaluation of the evidence, or amounted to a denial of justice. The Committee therefore declares this part of the communication insufficiently substantiated and inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.11 The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated his remaining claims, raising issues under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant and the remainder of claims under article 14 (1), (3) (d) and (g) and (5) of the Covenant, the Committee proceeds to their examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information submitted by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee takes note that the allegations of torture presented by the author relate to the events that took place on 22 October 2008, and between 25 and 27 October 2008, when he was questioned by the police officers as a witness and a suspect, respectively. The Committee notes the author’s claim that, because he had been under police surveillance since the morning of 23 October 2008, he could not see a medical expert to be examined after the beating he sustained. The Committee also notes, from the material available to it that, on 24 and 30 October 2008, the author was examined by medical experts who neither found any marks on his body nor received any complaints from the author. The author has not contested the independence of the medical experts. The Committee also notes the author’s allegations that the investigation of his complaints concerning torture by the police officers on 22 October 2008 was not effective. In this regard, the Committee observes that, on 9 February 2009, the Prosecutor’s Office of Astana repealed the decision of the Department of Internal Affairs dated 29 December 2008 not to open a criminal investigation against the police officers who allegedly tortured the author. The Committee notes that the reasons indicated by the Prosecutor’s Office included the failure of the investigators to identify and question a number of possible witnesses mentioned by the author. On 16 March 2009, after an additional investigation, the 8 8 See, inter alia, communications No. 1188/2003, Riedl-Riedenstein et al. v. Germany, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 2 November 2004, para. 7.3; and No. 1138/2002, Arenz et al. v. Germany, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 24 March 2004, para. 8.6. See also the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para. 26.