CAT/C/62/D/712/2015 complainant was taken to the psychiatric clinic on 12 July 2012, accompanied by her mother, where she was diagnosed with an acute reaction to stress. 4.18 The complainant’s allegations of the exercise of unlawful pressure on her by the law enforcement agents were investigated by the regional office of the Investigation Committee of the Russian Federation and the military investigation unit of the regional garrison. 10 They refused to open a criminal investigation into those allegations due to the lack of corpus delicti. There was no abuse of authority found in the actions of the law enforcement agents. 4.19 It shall be noted that the complainant did not lodge an appeal with the courts against the refusals to open a criminal investigation, as envisaged in article 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure. 4.20 Thus, the State party considers that no violations of the Convention were committed with respect to the complaint. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 6 October 2016, the complainant provided her comments on the State party’s submission. She rejects the State party’s claim that the cassation review procedure constitutes an effective domestic remedy, as found by the European Court of Human Rights in Abramyan and Others v. Russia dated 12 May 2015. She further notes that, since the Committee against Torture operates independently of the European Court of Human Rights, the State party cannot substantiate its claims with European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence. 5.2 She further notes that, during her legal training, she had been told by her lecturers, who were Russian Supreme Court judges, that all cassation appeals are denied automatically and that advocates should not lodge them on behalf of their clients. 5.3 The complainant reiterates that she exhausted all domestic remedies. The exhaustion is evidenced by the fact that the decision of the national court against her has entered into force, as required by the Committee, and appeal to the cassation court would not be an effective remedy in line with the requirements set out in article 22 paragraph 5 (b) of the Convention. 5.4 According to the complainant, every page of her criminal case file serves as proof that she suffered torture, cruel and inhuman treatment, because the allegations against her contradict the video and audio recordings used in the case and other available evidence. 5.5 The complainant reiterates that she was detained against her will for seven and a half hours, first in her client’s car, where she suffered torture, and then in the car of the head of unit of the regional office of the Federal Security Service, Sh.I.I., who took her to the offices of the regional office of the investigation department. When she arrived at the offices of the investigation department, all of the relevant documents had already been prepared by the investigator, including the crime report protocol, the complainant’s affidavit, and the crime scene examination protocol, which she was forced to sign under threats of torture, death and harm to her family. Moreover, the 220,000 Rub allegedly found in her purse were planted there in the investigator’s office. 5.6 The complainant further states that, after being tortured, she complained to the law enforcement agencies on several occasions, with the first complaint being filed on 8 July 2012. 11 The military investigation unit of the regional garrison and the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation should have looked into her complaints, however, the latter forwarded the complaints for investigation to the very officials against whom she was complaining. The officials failed to call in for questioning either the complainant or her two witnesses, who had information about her kidnapping and torture. 10 11 The military investigation unit of the regional garrison is a part of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, the body responsible for internal criminal investigations within the police force and the military. The complainant has not provided any proof of a complaint being filed on 8 July 2012. 5