CCPR/C/116/D/1941/2010 State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 In a communication dated 20 May 2011, the State party stated that the author had been convicted a number of times for different crimes, including banditry and hooliganism. On 10 and 11 September 2006, during a dispute with a certain B., the author insulted her; he also threatened B. and her daughter and waved a knife at them; lastly, the author stabbed B.’s daughter in the stomach. On 1 December 2006, the magistrate judge of district No. 110 of the Bogordskoe Region of Moscow convicted the author of threatening to commit murder, light body injury, and insult and sentenced him to two years of imprisonment. On 10 December 2007, the Preobrazhensky Regional Court confirmed the verdict fully upon appeal. On 9 April 2008, the Moscow City Court, ruling on his cassation appeal, confirmed the decisions. The author’s request for a supervisory review, received by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 20 May 2009, was returned owing to a failure to enclose the relevant court decisions, in accordance with article 404.2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. The author was informed that if he enclosed the requested documents, the Supreme Court would accept the request, but he failed to do so. Accordingly, the State party maintains that the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol, since the author has failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies. 4.2 The State party further submits that regarding the bodily injuries inflicted on the author, on 26 September 2006, the Office of the Prosecutor of the Preobrazhensky Region of Moscow initiated a criminal investigation for a crime under article 112.2 of the Criminal Code. The investigation established that, on 12 September 2006, in the entrance of building No. 27 on Podbelsky Street in Moscow, unknown persons deliberately inflicted injuries on the author, including a double fracture of the jaw, hematomas on the throat and bruises on the ribcage, face and stomach. The investigation was delegated to the Investigative Department of the Internal Affairs Department of Bogorodsky District in Moscow. On 7 November 2006, the author filed a complaint with the Office of the Prosecutor of the Preobrazhensky Region against the unlawful actions of police officers. A verification was conducted regarding the author’s allegations in accordance with articles 144-145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on the same date the Prosecutor’s Office refused to open a criminal case, on the basis of article 24.1.1 of the Code (absence of a crime). That decision by the Prosecutor’s Office was overruled by a decision of 2 March 2011, on the ground that the investigative actions had not been complete. The case file was sent to the Preobrazhensky Intraregional Investigative Department for additional investigation. The results of the investigation are being monitored. The developments in the case have not been challenged by the author before the courts. Accordingly, the State party maintains that the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol since the author has failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies. Author’s additional submissions 5. On 12 December 2010 and 25 February, 17 April and 14 November 2011, the author provided details regarding his personal conflict with B. He further submits that he is suffering from cancer, alleges that the State party’s authorities knew that he was ill but had falsified his medical records, and states that he also suffers from tuberculosis. He maintains that remaining in prison would have grave consequences for his health. In 2009 he was removed from the register of tuberculosis patients. In April 2011 he started coughing blood, but was not provided with adequate medical treatment (he was given medication for the coughing, but nothing else). He further submits that he was subjected to discrimination on the ground that he was an illegally convicted person. 4