CCPR/C/120/D/2532/2015 given to take additional investigative steps. The State party claims that the procedure is ongoing. In the light of those developments, the State party maintains that the author has not challenged the resolution of the investigator of 27 April 2014 and therefore has not exhausted all domestic remedies. Author’s comments to State party’s observations 6.1 In his comments dated 30 April 2015, the author submits his comments to the observations of the State party. He reiterates his allegations of torture and ill-treatment during his apprehension on 1 June 2009 and in the course of pretrial investigation and again provides the names of the alleged perpetrators, including police officers and investigators. Contrary to the State party’s affirmation, the author maintains that he did complain during the proceedings of the Soviet District Court of Kazan about the violence and ill-treatment he had suffered, but the judge, “Kh.”, dismissed his request without hearing his arguments.19 He also complained at the beginning of 2010 about the physical violence and torture, less than 3 months following the verdict of 25 December 2009. He also rebuffs the observations of the State party with regard to the alleged violations under article 14 and reiterates that the verdict against him was based mostly on the witness testimonies obtained during the pretrial investigation, while the witness statements during the trial were completely ignored by the court. Moreover, the court did not take into account that most of the testimonies in the pretrial investigation had been extracted through psychological pressure and physical violence. 6.2 The author further reiterates that his guilt was established based on the testimony of witness, “At.”, in the pretrial investigation, which had been extracted under duress. During the court hearing of 7 December 2009, “At.” stated that he had been tortured in order to testify against the author. 6.3 Contrary to the State party’s statement, the author affirms that he has a full alibi, and that several witnesses for the defence testified that on the day of the crime he had been in another town. He claims again that he was not informed about his procedural rights by the district court in its hearing of 25 December 2009, as the court did not explain whether he could take part in the parties’ presentations. He further submits that the complaint was raised by his counsel in his cassation appeal of 11 January 2010 and the procedural violation is grounds for the cancellation or alteration of the judicial decision according to article 381 (2) (6) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 6.4 The author complains that different prosecutors took part in the three trial court hearings of 7, 14 and 25 December 2009, but that their names were not announced by the court. The author was therefore unable to challenge the State prosecutor, “M.”, who during the investigation exercised psychological pressure on the author, using obscene language, cursing his Tatar mother and twice hit the author with his palm. 6.5 The author further reiterates that the victims, “E.” and “Z.”, were not present during the court proceedings and the matter of examining the case in their absence was not discussed by the court. He asserts that the medical-forensic expertise of 5 June 2009, the medical conclusions following his treatment in the hospital in the period 19 August 2009 to 16 September 2009 and the medical conclusion of the prison medical commission of 9 November 2010 provide evidence regarding the deterioration of his health due to the torture he was subjected to. His injuries could not have been sustained by falling once. Author’s additional comments 7. In his comments dated 25 June 2015, the author provides additional information in response to the State party’s observations of 12 May 2015. He claims again that the accusations against him were fabricated, that physical violence was used against him in June 2009 during his detention with the aim of extracting a confession. He asserts that his numerous complaints to the judicial and prosecutorial instances were not addressed 19 The author refers to the transcripts of the court hearing of 25 December 2009, which are part of the file and show that his request for a special ruling against the actions of the investigator, “Sh.”, was dismissed by the judge. The author did not detail the unlawful acts against him. 7