CAT/C/41/D/257/2004 Page 4 that although a “slight physical injury” had been caused to the complainant, the police officers concerned had acted lawfully. The criminal case was then closed. On 13 November 2003, the complainant appealed against this decision to the Military Court of Plovdiv, claiming that it was unfounded and beset by procedural irregularities4. On 24 November 2003, the Military Court confirmed the Prosecutor’s decision. The complainant submits that he has exhausted domestic remedies, as due to a legislative change in 2003 it is no longer possible to appeal such rulings to the Supreme Court. The complaint 3. The complainant claims that the treatment he received at the hands of the police, and for which the State party authorities failed to provide him with redress, amounted to violations of articles 1, paragraph 1; 10; 11; 12; and 16, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 30 November 2004, the State party provided its observations and submitted that the complaint was inadmissible as: (a) the complainant has failed to exhaust domestic remedies; and (b) the actions of the police officers do not qualify as “torture”, within the meaning of article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention. It contended that according to article 359 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), final judgements were subject to verification and that criminal cases can be re-opened on grounds listed in article 362 of the CPC. It acknowledged the complainant’s argument that until 30 May 2003, the Criminal Procedure Code allowed appeals against rulings of the Regional Military Court before the Supreme Court, but that this possibility was eliminated by an amendment of the Criminal Code. By virtue of article 237, paragraph 4, Criminal Code, the decision of the Plovdiv Regional Military Court was final and not subject to appeal. However, it stated that after 30 May 2003 such rulings became subject to review within the terms of Chapter XVIII CPC (Re-opening of Criminal Cases). Accordingly, the complainant could have requested the Military Prosecutor or the Prosecutor-General to review the judgement, after which either one of them could have requested the Supreme Court to re-open the case. According to the State party, the complainant had failed to avail of this remedy and had thus failed to exhaust domestic remedies. 4.2 The State party submitted that the actions of the police officers against the complainant do not qualify as “torture” within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. It submitted: (a) that the police officers did not act with the intention of inflicting severe pain or suffering on the complainant for any of the purposes defined in the first sentence of article 1, paragraph 1 of the Convention. According to the State party, the documents submitted by the complainant demonstrate that the officers acted in compliance with article 78, paragraph 1 (1) and (2), of the Law on the Ministry of Interior, which “authorises the use of physical force and other means for police officers if their duties cannot be exercised by 4 The complainant states that the Martial Court in Plovdiv accepted as an established fact, without verification, that he was drunk at the time of the incident, and that he hit tables and armchairs in the lobby bar, and threw down ash-trays “thus disturbing the public order”.