CCPR/C/120/D/2532/2015 properly and were instead sent back to the very same bodies that had committed the torture. He reiterates that four witnesses for the defence testified that he had been subjected to physical violence. As to the State party’s argument of non-exhaustion, he maintains that his complaint to the Vakhitovsky District Court of Kazan was rejected without consideration on 27 February 2010 on the grounds that it was not in the Court’s competency to open criminal proceedings against the investigators “K.” and “Sh.”. State party’s observations on the merits 8.1 In a note verbale dated 30 July 2015, the State party submitted additional observations. It maintains that the Prosecutor General examined the author’s complaints and responded with motivated letters dated 22 July and 30 November 2011 and 12 January 2012. The final decision was taken by the deputy Prosecutor General, and the Chair of the Committee for Civil Rights, representing the author, was informed about it on 5 May 2014. 8.2 The author was detained in the pretrial detention facility (isolator) from 11 June 2009 until 23 March 2010. Upon admission, he underwent a medical examination and was diagnosed with high blood pressure (hypertensive disease), ischemic heart disease and orthostatic collapse. In connection with those diseases, he was admitted to the hospital, where he was given the necessary medical treatment. 8.3 The State party rejects again the author’s allegations of torture. It clarifies that, on 23 May 2015, the author submitted a complaint against the investigator and the assistant prosecutor. On 1 June 2015, the opening of a criminal investigation into his allegations was refused, based on a preliminary examination. On 8 June 2015, the Office of the Prosecutor of Tatarstan quashed that decision and instructed the investigating agency to conduct an additional investigation. The author can appeal the outcome of that procedure to the head of the investigating agency, the prosecutor or the court. Author’s additional comments 9. In his additional comments submitted on 12 October 2015, the author reiterates the main arguments of his initial submission. He disagrees with the replies provided to his supervisory appeals. He challenges again the first instance verdict against him and the subsequent court decisions as unlawful and unjust. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 10.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 10.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee observes that, on 8 June 2010, the author presented an application on the same events before the European Court of Human Rights. However, by a letter dated 13 March 2014, the Court rejected the application as inadmissible under articles 34 and 35 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Committee recalls that, in ratifying the Optional Protocol, the State party did not introduce a reservation excluding the competence of the Committee in relation to cases that have been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol from examining the communication. 10.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s submission that the communication as to the author’s allegations of torture under article 7 of the Covenant should be considered an abuse to the rights to submission under article 3 of the Optional Protocol as the author raised the allegation one and half years after the alleged events, in his request for supervisory review to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 17 November 2010. The Committee however notes that the author lodged several complaints with the courts in that regard, including a request for a criminal case to be opened against the 8