CAT/C/51/D/441/2010 5.11 As to the supervisory review proceedings, the complainant maintains that the rejection by the Supreme Court of the appeal under the supervisory review proceedings of D.T., who was convicted together with the complainant in the same criminal case and who also claimed to have been tortured in his complaint, demonstrates the ineffectiveness of such proceedings.5 5.12 The complainant adds that the passivity of the national authorities in not considering and investigating his allegations of torture represents a strong argument against the effectiveness of domestic remedies. He reiterates that only effective remedies must be exhausted. 5.13 The complainant further submits that the possibility of lodging complaints with the Prosecutor’s Office does not represent an effective domestic remedy. The State party argues that he failed to appeal to the General Prosecutor’s Office against the refusal of the prosecutor to initiate criminal proceedings. In the complainant’s opinion, a representative of the General Prosecutor’s Office was present during the consideration of his appeal by the Supreme Court in any event. However, the Prosecutor’s Office did not consider his allegations of torture and did not initiate any investigation of them. This confirms the ineffectiveness of submitting complaints to the General Prosecutor’s Office. The complainant also complained about torture to the District Prosecutor on 10 December 2008 and subsequently to the Astana City Prosecutor’s Office (which on 26 June 2009 upheld the refusal of 8 June 2009 of the Department of Internal Security of the Department of Internal Affairs of Astana to initiate criminal proceedings against police officers involved in his illtreatment), as well as to the representative of the General Prosecutor’s Office who was present when his appeal was examined by the Supreme Court. The failure of the authorities to address his allegations of torture undermined the complainant’s hope of getting redress at national level by way of a complaint submitted to the General Prosecutor’s Office. 5.14 Moreover, and with reference to the case law of the Human Rights Committee, the complainant notes that the State party has not demonstrated that supervisory review proceedings before the Supreme Court and the General Prosecutor’s Office, as domestic remedies, are not only provided by law but are also available and effective, both in theory and in practice. 5.15 The complainant adds that his family has received threats from police officers and from family members of the murdered mother and her three children. 5.16 Finally, he submits that the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment visited him and the complainant informed him of the ill-treatment he had suffered and this was reflected in the official report of the Special Rapporteur on his mission to Kazakhstan.6 State party’s observations on merits 6.1 On 9 September 2011, the State party provided its observations on the merits. It recalls the facts of the case (see paras. 4.2–4.3 above) and stresses that it has provided the Committee with enough arguments on the inadmissibility of the communication. 6.2 The State party adds that complainant’s alleged ill-treatment during his extradition in 2008 was duly investigated and found to be without grounds. On 9 December 2008, upon 5 6 8 In this connection, the complainant points out that before the judgment entered into force, the national authorities and, in particular, the Chairman of the supervisory review body of the Supreme Court, referred to the complainant as a “convict”, thus violating the principle of presumption of innocence and demonstrating the ineffectiveness of the supervisory proceedings. A/HRC/13/39/Add.3, para. 59 and appendix, paras. 116 and 117.