CCPR/C/126/D/2306/2013 4.12 After submitting a complaint to the Committee, the author also submitted a complaint dated 19 May 2014 against the investigators in his case, claiming that they had exceeded their authority. As a result, on 22 October 2014, the prosecutor’s office of the city of Spassk-Dalny initiated an examination, which is currently ongoing, and on which no final decision has been taken.3 4.13 The State party confirms that from 18 June to 2 July 2014, the author was treated in hospital No. 1 of the federal penitentiary system with a diagnosis of “exacerbation of chronic calculous cholecystitis”. He was treated and released, and was told to follow doctor’s recommendations, including a diet. As a result, he received food that contained less fat and fewer spices than usual. The author did not complain about the food to the administration of the prison. He is regularly checked by doctors. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 In his responses to the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits, the author submits that he confessed to crimes because he was “tortured and threatened”, but that his complaints were disregarded by the court and that this is recorded in court records. 4 The author also stated that he had audio recordings on a compact disc that contained his conversations with the police officers. 5 The author asked for the disc to be forensically examined to ascertain if the voices belonged to the police officers but his request was rejected. 5.2 All complaints that the author filed from SIZO-4 were sent to the prosecutor’s office. The prosecutor’s office, however, always tried to protect the officials of the pretrial detention facility. The author complained about the lack of medical assistance in SIZO-4 and the conditions of detention, but all his complaints remained unanswered. In support, the author sent a copy of his complaints to the prosecutor’s office on 16 December 2011 and 30 January 2012. 5.3 The author also draws attention to the fact that the alleged crime was committed, according to the authorities, on 14 July 2010 and the search was conducted on 31 August 2010. The purpose of the search was to deliver the author to the police station of the city of Spassk-Dalny, subject him to torture and force him to sign a confession. The author complained about this during the court hearings. He submits copies of two complaints, from March and July 2014, but claims to have never received a response. 5.4 The author also claims that the police officer, V.V., who acted as a “buyer”, was subsequently fired from the police based on the fact that had he falsified evidence regarding a drug investigation. He could not testify in court because at the time, he was at large and wanted by the authorities. 5.5 The author also claims that he was released after initially being held for 24 hours, and that he had to travel 50 kilometres to reach home. During his 24 hours in detention, he was forced to sign “different papers”. In all his complaints, the author complained about torture, threats and that the evidence was falsified against him. According to the author, the court also falsified its final verdict, as is evident from the copies presented to the Committee. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 3 4 5 This claim is made in the State party’s submission dated 24 November 2014. The author submitted several responses, dated 23 March, 9 April, 23 August 2014; 15 December and 27 March 2015; and 29 September 2017. The author refers to this audio disc/CD at various stages of the proceedings before the Committee. However, he has not presented a copy of the disc to the Committee, nor has he provided the transcripts of the alleged recordings. 5