CCPR/C/113/D/2054/2011 2.6 The author also submits that an alleged suicide note, written on a cigarette pack, was recovered from the detention cell of his brother.2 However, no writing implements were recovered from the cell. The investigation ordered a forensic assessment of the handwriting, in which the note was compared with writing samples provided by the police, and which concluded that the note had been written by Mr. Ernazarov. However, family members familiar with the handwriting of the victim maintain that it was not written by him. 2.7 The author submits that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted. Between 29 November 2005 and 2 June 2006, the family lodged seven requests with the Public Prosecutor and two complaints with the Ministry of Internal Affairs relating to the investigation into the death of the author’s brother. The family requested information concerning the investigation, identified facts and circumstances that required further investigation and evidence that needed to be gathered, and protested against their exclusion from the investigation. 2.8 Between 16 August 2006 and 10 February 2007, the family filed four applications before the Osh City Court and two appeals to the Regional Court, challenging, without success, the failure to investigate. On an unspecified date, the family filed a complaint before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court returned the case to the City Court for decision. On 13 March 2008, the City Court again refused to consider the substance of the claim. The complaint 3.1 The author alleges that his brother’s right under article 6 (1) was violated because the State party failed in its positive obligation to protect the right to life of a vulnerable prisoner. The author refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence defining the right to life as the “supreme right”,3 which cannot be understood in a restrictive manner, and the protection of which “requires that States should adopt positive measures”.4 The author stresses that the positive obligation to protect life applies in particular to detainees,5 who are particularly vulnerable,6 and that the State party has a special responsibility to take adequate measures to protect them.7 Where a State fails to take adequate measures to protect prisoners, it may be responsible for a violation of article 6 (1) of the Covenant.8 The author refers to the standards of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which state that “prisoners suspected or convicted of sexual offences are at a particularly high risk of being assaulted by other prisoners”,9 and that responsibility to protect requires that the States take positive measures to protect prisoners from that risk. The author also refers to the Committee’s holding in one case that “whether [the individual] committed suicide, was driven to suicide or was killed by others while in 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4 The note, written in Uzbek, allegedly stated: “My killers are [the father of Mr. Ernazarov’s former girlfriend] and [his former girlfriend]. They passed the shaving razor to me. Nobody is to be blamed. Nobody should suffer because of me. This was not done on a court’s verdict. There is a higher court in Rome. I want my conscience cleaned. Good bye, Rakhmon.” See general comment No. 14 (1984) on the right to life, para. 1. General comment No. 5 (1994), para. 5. The author refers to communication No. 763/1997, Lantsova v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 26 March 2002, para. 9.2. See general comment No. 21 (1992) on the humane treatment of persons deprived of their liberty, para. 3. The author refers to communications No. 84/1981, Dermit Barbato v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 21 October 1982, para. 9.2 and No. 30/1978, Bleier v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 29 March 1982, paras. 11.2 and 13.3. The author refers to Dermit Barbato v. Uruguay, para. 9.2. CPT Standards, p. 23.