CCPR/C/130/D/2400/2014 Complaint 3.1 The author claims that he has suffered torture and ill-treatment at the hands of the police and that the State party has failed to effectively investigate his complaints, in violation of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a), of the Covenant. 3.2 The author alleges that his arbitrary arrest and detention for more than five hours without access to a lawyer or family member violates his rights under article 9 (1) of the Covenant. The Code of Criminal Procedure of Kyrgyzstan requires the police to make a formal record of an arrest for anyone who is detained for longer than three hours, which was not done in the present case. 3.3 Finally, the author claims a violation of his rights under article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant given that he was forced to confess under torture. State party’s observations on the merits 4. In a note verbale dated 27 December 2014, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the communication. According to the State party, the Sokuluk district prosecutor’s office has, on numerous occasions, refused to open a criminal investigation into the author’s allegations of torture. The State party notes that the refusals dated 3 March and 28 August 2010 by the Sokuluk district assistant prosecutor were quashed by the domestic courts and assessed according to the appropriate legal standards. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 5. On 16 March 2015, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. He notes that, in its observations, the State party has not addressed any of his claims. He submits that all inquiries conducted by the Sokuluk district prosecutor’s office were extremely superficial and biased. He notes that, while conducting an inquiry into his claims, the prosecutor’s office never questioned the doctors who treated him for the injuries he sustained in December 2009 or his neighbours, who could have provided information as to whether he had any injuries before his arrest. The author also notes that the prosecutor’s office did not examine the closed-circuit television footage from the Sokuluk district police department, which would have shown the details and timeline of the author’s detention. The author argues that, apart from his claims of torture, the prosecutor’s office was required, under articles 304 and 324 of the Criminal Code of Kyrgyzstan, 6 to open a criminal investigation into his arrest because the police did not have any legal grounds to detain him and his detention took place outside of any formal investigation, as evidenced by the lack of procedural documents. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 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. 6.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim that he has exhausted all available domestic legal remedies. In the absence of any objection by the State party in that connection, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the communication. 6.4 The Committee notes the author’s claim under article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant. The Committee recalls that, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3 of its general comment No. 32 (2007), paragraph 3 of article 14 contains procedural guarantees available 6 4 Articles 304 and 324 pertain, respectively, to the abuse of official power and unlawful detention.