CAT/C/53/D/495/2012 she would like to ask that the statements contained in the communication be recognized as valid. State party’s observations on admissibility 8. On 19 June 2013, the State party submitted that the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment had come into force for Kazakhstan on 26 June 2008 and that the State party had recognized the competence of the Committee against Torture to review communications concerning facts that had taken place after that date. The State party submits that the alleged violations against the complainant’s son took place before that date and therefore the communication should be considered inadmissible. Complainant’s comments 9. On 23 September 2013, the complainant submitted that with regard to the issue of the admissibility ratione temporis, she maintained her earlier arguments. She refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence in Gerasimov v. Kazakhstan,7 where the Committee found that it was not precluded from examining the case, because the State party’s failure to fulfil its obligations to investigate the complainant’s allegations and to provide him with redress continued after the State party recognized the Committee’s competence under article 22 of the Convention. She maintains that the communication is admissible because, while the torture against her son took place in 2006, it still, after the declaration under article 22 of the Convention, has not been effectively and promptly investigated by the responsible Kazakh authorities, despite the complaints filed on her son’s behalf with the request to investigate the torture and punish the perpetrators. She maintains that the failure to conduct an investigation is a continuing breach of the obligation to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the alleged torture. She further submits that her son continues to suffer from health problems as a result of the trauma experienced: in addition to hearing loss, he suffers from “regular headaches, heart pain and intermittent vomiting” and has had a heart attack.8 State party’s further observations 10. On 27 December 2013, the State party reiterated that the communication should be declared inadmissible ratione temporis and that the allegations in it were unfounded. Complainant’s further comments 11. On 4 April 2014, the complainant submitted that the State party’s submission did not contain any new arguments and that she supported her earlier submissions. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 12.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that 7 8 The complainant refers to communication No. 433/2010, Gerasimov v. Kazakhstan, decision adopted on 24 May 2012, para. 11.2. The complainant provided medical certificates as evidence of her son’s continuing health issues, dated 30 September 2011, 18 and 19 January 2012 and 22 August 2013. 7