CCPR/C/115/D/2052/2011 2.11 On 28 February 2008, the Office of the Prosecutor General again overturned the suspension of the investigation on the basis of those contradictions. On 12 March 2008, the Prosecutor General ordered a fourth medical forensic review, which was conducted by a commission of senior experts on 19 March 2008. In their report, the experts confirmed the latest independent forensic expert’s conclusions. In April 2008, the family’s lawyer filed a complaint with the Office of the Prosecutor General requesting that criminal charges be brought against certain officers, that those officers be taken into custody and that the criminal case be sent to court for a consideration of the merits. The case was again sent to the Office of the Prosecutor General and then transferred to the Investigation Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. 2.12 On 30 August 2008, the Office of the Prosecutor General again ordered that the criminal prosecution of the police officers be discontinued, noting that contradictions between the conclusions of the official medical forensic examinations and those of the expert rendered it impossible “to make a valid and legal ruling in the case”. On 17 November 2008, the Prosecutor General again overturned the decision to terminate the criminal case and returned it once again to the prosecutor for further investigation. On 12 January 2009, the local branch of the Investigation Department once again suspended the investigation and, on 25 May 2009, the Office of the Prosecutor General once again overturned the suspension of the investigation and sent the case back to the regional prosecutor’s office for further investigation, extending the period by one month. On 8 July 2009, the local prosecuting authorities again suspended the investigation because the perpetrators had not been identified. 2.13 On 4 January 2011, the family’s lawyer filed a complaint with the Osh City Court detailing the evidence of the victim’s torture, the inconsistencies in the police’s version of events and the deficiencies in the investigation. He asked the Court to send the case to trial on its merits. On 11 January 2011, the Court rejected the lawyer’s complaint. In addition, it decided that all decisions relating to the investigation would be taken only by investigators and that courts could not interfere. On 20 January 2011, the lawyer appealed to the Osh Regional Court, asking it to overturn the decision of the Osh City Court and to order the investigators to send the case to trial. On 15 February 2011, the Osh Regional Court rejected the appeal for the same reason as the Osh City Court. 2.14 The author submits that during all his efforts to obtain a proper investigation the police attempted to bribe him and intimidate him into dropping his complaints. In particular, on 29 June 2005, when the author met the chief of district police, Z.T., to inquire about the developments in the case, he was attacked by him and his left index finger was bent back and two tendons were torn. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that police officers arbitrarily deprived his son of his life by inflicting fatal injuries on him while he was detained and kept on police premises. His son was healthy when he entered those premises; when he arrived home right after leaving the police station, he was fatally injured and died of those injuries. 3.2 The author refers to the Committee’s recent jurisprudence, according to which “a death in any type of custody should be regarded as prima facie a summary or arbitrary execution”, unless that presumption can be rebutted by a “thorough, prompt and impartial investigation”.4 4 The author refers to communication No. 1225/2003, Eshonov v. Uzbekistan, Views adopted on 22 July 2010, para. 9.2. 5