CCPR/C/120/D/2532/2015 conditions. However, the question is whether, as he alleges (see para. 6.5), those conditions derived from his torture or his general health characteristics, which already existed prior to his detention. 8. The State party maintains there is no objective data supporting the allegations of torture during the pretrial investigation (see para. 4.4). The Prosecutor General examined the author’s complaints and responded with several motivated letters (see para. 8.1). Later, the opening of another criminal investigation was refused, on the basis of the preliminary examination, a decision that was later quashed (see para. 8.3). 9. The State party has convincingly rebutted the allegations of torture presented by the author, making it difficult to follow the Committee’s conclusion that the investigation into the allegations of torture was not carried out promptly and effectively by the State party (see para. 11.2). If no reliable signs of torture were perceived, why should investigations be held? Indeed, the State has conducted such investigations. 10. I would thus have concluded this part of the communication (under article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant), to be insufficiently substantiated by the author. 11. As regards the factual evidence, several bodies decided to rejected the author’s allegations on appeal (see paras. 2.11-2.13). Those decisions included detailed analyses of the evidence produced during the trial; and the bodies concluded there had been no violations of due process. There was no mention, either before first instance or in cassation appeal, that the author had suffered torture or breaches of fair trial guarantees (see footnote 14 and paras. 4.1 and 4.3). 12. As regards the complaints against police officers, the author’s allegations were addressed each time by the authorities and were consistently rejected (see paras. 2.14-2.20), not only because they considered that the author’s bodily harm had been suffered prior to his arrest (see para. 2.18), but also because no elements of crime were established (see para. 2.19). It is not uncommon during criminal investigations for defendants to try to jeopardize the credibility of their police investigators by accusing them of torture or ill-treatment. 13. The State party refers to the decision by the Supreme Court that “the guilt of the author is fully proven by the collected evidence which is examined in detail and analysed accurately in the verdict” (see paras. 4.3-4.4) and considers that the author’s complaints were duly examined (see paras. 8.1-8.3). The author is not represented by counsel before the Committee and so may fail to understand how successive judicial instances have thoroughly analysed and rebutted his arguments. In the light of the above, and unlike the Committee’s findings (see para. 11.3), I would thus have concluded that the author’s claim under article 14 (1) of the Covenant was also insufficiently substantiated. 13