CCPR/C/115/D/2052/2011 5.3 The author also disputes the State party’s submission that Turdubek Akmatov was brought to the police station at approximately 3 p.m. on 3 May 2005. The State party, in its submission, contradicts itself by stating that Mr. Akmatov was brought to the police station at 9 a.m., which is consistent with the testimony of the Akmatov family. 5.4 He further submits that the State party lacked safeguards to protect his son’s life. The victim was not provided with a lawyer, his detention was not registered and a medical examination was not allowed. These failures created an environment that facilitated his torture and ultimate death. 5.5 The author reiterates his position regarding the State party’s failure to conduct an effective investigation and to provide redress for torture. Mr. Akmatov’s family has been denied compensation, despite having made extensive efforts to have Turdubek’s death properly investigated. The absence of any real attempt to establish criminal liability makes a civil claim impossible as a matter of law. 5.6 The author invites the Committee to find that the State party violated all the articles mentioned above, to create an independent commission of inquiry to investigate the exact circumstances of Turdubek’s torture and death, to urge the State party to pay compensation to the family of the victim and, finally, to urge the State party to introduce safeguards to prevent similar violations in the future. State party’s further observations 6.1 On 3 February 2012, the State party, reiterating its position, submitted that Turdubek Akmatov was detained at approximately 3 p.m., not 9 a.m. This was confirmed by the witnesses, officers N.T. and Y.S. Officer Y.S. testified that Mr. Akmatov was not beaten while in custody and that when he left the police station he was in “normal condition”, with “no injuries on visible parts of his body”. It is true that initially officer M.E. testified having witnessed the beating of Mr. Akmatov, but he later recanted his testimony, stating that he had been pressured by the victim’s father, Suyunbai Akmatov. Officer M.E. also testified that he was not even present at the police station on the day in question. 6.2 The State party submits that several other officers had seen Turdubek Akmatov and testified that he was without any injuries and that he was walking “without anyone’s help”. The author’s assertions that those officers were under pressure are not supported by the evidence, since the questionings were carried out by investigators of the prosecutor’s office. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 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. 7.3 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that counsel for the author has not sought the supervisory review of the Osh City Court order of 11 January 2011 and the Osh Regional Court order of 15 February 2011. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which filing a request for supervisory review with regard to a court decision that has entered into force constitutes an extraordinary remedy, which would depend on the discretionary powers of the court in question, and the State party would have to show that there was a reasonable prospect that such request would result in an effective remedy in the 8