CAT/C/53/D/495/2012 alleged acts”. Moreover, the investigation “did not meet the criteria of independence and impartiality”, since although, according to the norms of national legislation, the Prosecutor’s Office had the authority to look into torture complaints, all complaints lodged by her son, by his lawyer and by her were returned to the office of internal investigation of the police. She further notes that the State party argues that the injuries of her son were sustained during a fight on 16 September 2006. She maintains that at about 3 a.m. on 16 September 2006 her son and Mr. M. were taken to a hospital, where the doctors failed to document their injuries. Only when her son’s condition deteriorated and his relatives brought him to the emergency room of the Mendykara Central District Hospital were his injuries documented, by the doctor on duty. 5.2 The complainant also notes the State party’s submission that the complaints regarding torture that her son had filed while in detention had been destroyed because, in accordance with Ministry of Justice Order No. 28 of 21 January 2002, the storage period for logs of complaints and appeals was five years, and the storage period for information regarding placements in cells of persons in custody was one year. The complainant refers to the Human Rights Committee’s jurisprudence that if a complainant provides detailed information about an instance of torture the State party is expected to properly investigate the allegations.4 She also refers to the Human Rights Committee’s findings that the burden of proof cannot rest on the author of the communication alone, especially considering that the author and the State party do not always have equal access to relevant information to the case. In cases where the alleged violations are confirmed by the evidence provided by the author, and where further clarification of the case depends on information exclusively in the hands of the State concerned, the Committee, in the absence of satisfactory evidence and explanations to the contrary submitted by the State, may find the author’s allegations to be substantiated.5 She maintains that the State party should provide specific answers and evidence related to the allegations, and that a denial of a general nature is not sufficient.6 The complainant maintains that in the absence of information on measures taken by the State party for a thorough, timely and effective investigation of the torture allegations concerning her son the Committee should consider the admissibility of the communication together with the merits of the communication and recognize violations by Kazakhstan of articles 1, 12, 13 of the Convention. State party’s further submission 6. On 11 January 2013, the State party submitted that, according to the Office of the Prosecutor-General, the allegations of torture committed by police officers against the complainant’s son had been “disproved”, that the State party had not violated the Convention against Torture and that the communication should be declared inadmissible. Complainant’s comments 7. On 6 March 2013, the complainant submitted that she maintained her earlier submissions and that, in the absence of information on measures taken by the State for a thorough, timely and effective investigation of the torture allegations concerning her son 4 5 6 6 The complainant refers to Human Rights Committee communication No. 8/1977, Weismann de Lanza and Lanza Perdomo v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 3 April 1980. The complainant refers to the Human Rights Committee’s jurisprudence in communications No. 992/2001, Bousroual v. Algeria, Views adopted on 30 March 2006, No. 30/1978, Bleier v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 29 March 1982, para. 13.3 and No. 1756/2008, Zhumbaeva v. Kyrgyzstan, Views adopted on 19 July 2011. The complainant refers to Weismann de Lanza and Lanza Perdomo v. Uruguay.