CCPR/C/115/D/2052/2011 circumstances of the case.12 The State party has not shown, however, the extent to which petitions to the Supreme Court for supervisory review procedures have been applied successfully in cases concerning effective investigation of torture claims. In such circumstances, the Committee finds that article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol does not preclude it from considering the communication. 7.4 In the Committee’s view, the author has sufficiently substantiated, for the purposes of admissibility, his claims under articles 6 (1) and 7, read separately and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant. The Committee declares the claims admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information submitted by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that his son died as a result of the illtreatment and torture he suffered in police custody, being in good physical and mental health before being taken into custody, and that he was not given access to a lawyer while in custody. The Committee also notes the irrefutable evidence of multiple autopsies and examinations that were conducted, which showed that numerous bruises, lacerations and abrasions to the head, chest and fingers were inflicted on the victim. The examinations also revealed serious injuries to the brain, lung, kidneys and spleen caused by “blunt, hard objects”. 8.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s claims regarding the inadequate investigation into allegations of torture in police custody, and of the death of the author’s son as a result of torture. No perpetrators were identified, despite the fact that officer M.E. made a statement according to which he saw at least one other police officer, N.T., beating the victim in the police station on 3 May 2005 and despite the fact that the victim, shortly before his death, identified Z.T. as the main perpetrator of the alleged crime. Although the State party claims that its investigative authorities have questioned more than 60 witnesses and conducted four forensic examinations, it concedes that the initial stages of the investigation were carried out in a manner that was superficial, that the investigation itself lasted more than four years, that the evidence was improperly recorded and that, ultimately, the investigation was discontinued. 8.4 The Committee notes the author’s claim in relation to the arbitrary deprivation of his son’s life, and his reference to the Committee’s general comment No. 6 (1982) on the right to life and its jurisprudence, according to which States parties, by arresting and detaining individuals, take the responsibility to care for their life,13 and that criminal investigation and subsequent prosecution are necessary remedies for violations of human rights such as those protected by article 6 of the Covenant.14 It further recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, that where investigations reveal violations of certain Covenant rights, such as 12 13 14 See communications No. 836/1998, Gelazauskas v. Lithuania, Views adopted on 17 March 2003, para. 7.4; No. 1784/2008, Schumilin v. Belarus, Views adopted on 23 July 2012, para. 8.3; and No. 1814/2008, P.L. v. Belarus, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 26 July 2011, para. 6.2. See communication No. 763/1997, Lantsov v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 26 March 2002, para. 9.2. See communication No. 1436/2005, Sathasivam v. Sri Lanka, Views of 8 July 2008, para. 6.4; communication No. 1275/2004, Umetaliev and Tashtanbekova v. Kyrgyzstan, Views of 30 October 2008, para. 9.2. 9