CCPR/C/120/D/2162/2012 accepted this as a fact, maintaining only that the practice of requiring payment for the translation is not in violation of the criminal procedure law. The author challenges the State party’s argument and refers to article 147 (1) 3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, according to which the court costs related to interpretation are paid by the State. 7.4 On 3 February 2015, the author informed the Committee that on 13 November 2014 the Osh City Court had ordered the early release of his brother.13 However, he maintains that his brother is still a victim under the Optional Protocol, as the State party did not acknowledge or correct the violations of his rights guaranteed by the Covenant. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 8.2 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. 8.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s claim that the author’s brother did not complain about the alleged torture in police custody to the Osh city prosecutor’s office and that his counsel, in his letter of 24 October 2012 to the Prosecutor General of Kyrgyzstan, also did not mention torture of his client by the police. The Committee notes, however, the author’s allegations that his brother complained during the court hearing about having been subjected to torture by police officers and that he did not raise the allegations of torture before the prosecutor’s office due to fear of reprisal and further torture. The Committee further notes that at a later stage (two years later), the complaint lodged by the author on 5 April 2013 with the Prosecutor General of Kyrgyzstan against the acts of the Osh city prosecutor’s office (questioning the author’s brother in connection with the communication before the Committee) and requesting the opening of a criminal case against the police officers was rejected on 10 May. The Committee therefore considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met and that it is not precluded from examining the claim. 8.4 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegations of ill-treatment by police officers during his pretrial detention with the aim of extracting a confession. The author’s brother alleged that he was beaten and tortured by police officers and forced to give written testimony against M.T. The author’s brother raised this allegation before national authorities, as is indicated notably in the Osh City Court verdict of 7 July 2011, and is not refuted by the State party. The Committee further notes that the Court did not refer the case for further investigation. In this regard, the Committee takes note of the State party’s arguments that the author’s brother wanted to escape criminal liability and that he and his counsel had not complained of torture before the prosecutor’s office. The Committee further notes that the author’s brother’s allegations are not supported by any medical document. From the material before it, the Committee is not in a position to conclude that the author’s brother was subjected to treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. In the absence of more precise information from the author in this respect, the Committee concludes that the author’s allegations under article 7 have been insufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility and declares them inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.5 The Committee notes the author’s claims under article 9 (1) and (3) of the Covenant that his brother was arrested on 25 February 2011 and kept in detention from 2 p.m. to 11.40 p.m. without being informed of the reasons, and that on 27 February the Osh City Court ordered his remand in pretrial detention without a legal basis. However, the Committee observes that the author’s brother detention in connection with the criminal proceedings was authorized by the Osh City Court on 27 February and that the Court, 13 8 The decision is not part of the file.