CAT/C/62/D/712/2015 5.7 The complainant argues that the witness testimony obtained from the Federal Security Service agents cannot be objective, because those agents would not want to be criminally prosecuted for their actions. Ch. has a psychiatric illness, has been registered at a psychiatric hospital since his childhood due to having schizophrenia, was previously found by a court to be mentally unfit 12 and cooperates with the regional office of the Federal Security Service. Consequently, his testimony cannot be used to support claims that the case was investigated in an objective manner. The complainant argues that the court is not competent to evaluate Ch.’s mental state, a task that can only be performed by a psychiatric expert. 5.8 In accordance with the legal services agreement and the order, 13 which are attached to the complaint, the complainant was representing Ch.’s interests. He never formally terminated her services. Advocates are allowed to give/receive money to/from their clients in case of compensation for moral and material damages. 14 5.9 The complainant refutes the State party’s assertion that she cooperated with the investigation. The criminal case files do not contain any reference to her cooperation with the investigation. Moreover, there was no criminal case against her on 3 July 2012, so there was no way for her to cooperate with the investigation. She further states that all of the witnesses in the case against her were the very law enforcement agents who tortured her and would never testify against themselves. 5.10 The complainant states that she later learned that her defence counsel was working for the investigation team and, on 1 December 2012, she submitted to the case investigator a letter stating her lack of confidence in her counsel. 15 She further states that her counsel was later fired from the regional collegium of advocates and that, on several occasions, she saw him entering and exiting the regional office of the Federal Security Service. 16 5.11 The complainant claims that, because she was an advocate, any surveillance or other investigative actions against her could have been carried out only after obtaining an order from a judge. However, the text of the judicial order issued on 3 July 2012 implies that the surveillance operation targeting the complainant has already been carried out, which in itself is a gross violation of Russian law. 5.12 As to the authenticity of the disks containing audio and video recordings made during the course of the events of 3 and 4 July 2012, the complainant argues that she submitted requests for the recordings to be examined by technical and forensic experts, in order to check that they had not been edited or falsified, however both the courts concerned rejected her requests. The courts do not have the right, knowledge or technical means to verify the authenticity of audio and video files: that task can only be performed by technical and forensic experts in specialized laboratories. 5.13 The complainant refutes the State party’s statement that she did not lodge an appeal to the courts against the refusals to open a criminal investigation into her allegations of torture, as provided for in article 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure. She claims that she did lodge an appeal under article 125, however, it was not considered by courts and was just added to the criminal case file. 17 12 13 14 15 16 17 6 The trial court examined the results of a psychiatric examination of Ch. conducted in another case, where he was a victim, and concluded that he was mentally fit. An order is a document that is usually submitted by advocates to investigators and courts as proof of their relationship with their clients. The complainant has attached copies of the order and the relevant client registration form. The complainant claims that the money was given to her by someone as compensation for moral damages awarded to Ch. in another criminal case and that she met Ch. on 3 July 2012 to hand over the money. However, the court documents show that, during the pretrial investigation, she claimed that she had borrowed the money from Ch. at an earlier date and that she had met Ch. on 3 July 2012 to repay her debt. No copy of the letter was provided; however, during the trial, she was represented by another counsel. No documentary evidence was provided in that regard. The complainant does not provide a copy of the appeal or any other evidence to substantiate this claim.