CCPR/C/113/D/2054/2011 Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5. On 30 January 2012, the author submitted that the State party did not dispute the basic facts of the case, namely that his brother had been arrested by the police officers in Osh and died while in the detention centre in Osh. He notes that the State party does not challenge the admissibility of the case. He also notes that the State party’s observations do not address the arguments that the State party had failed in its positive obligation to protect the right to life of a vulnerable prisoner, that his brother’s death must be presumed to be an arbitrary killing and that the State party had failed to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation rebutting that presumption, and that it had failed to provide access to an effective remedy for the family of the victim. The author reiterated his initial submission. State party’s further observations 6.1 On 18 April 2012, the State party reiterated the facts related to the criminal charges against the author’s brother and the investigation into his death (see paras. 4.1–4.3). The State party further reiterates that a suicide note was found scribbled on a cigarette package and that a forensic handwriting assessment confirmed that it had been written by the author’s brother. It submits that among the reasons to open a criminal investigation against the cellmates of the victim were the facts that no cutting instrument had been recovered and that the forensic medical examination was inconclusive regarding the issue of whether his lethal wounds had been self-inflicted. The State party submits, however, that the investigation could not gather evidence that the cellmates or the police officers in the station were responsible for the injuries inflicted on the author’s brother. 6.2 The State party contests the author’s submission that his brother was subjected to torture by his cellmates and that the police officers in the station were aware of that. It submits that witnesses are being warned of the criminal responsibility for false testimony when questioned, that both the cellmates and police officers from the station had been questioned and that there were no contradictions among their testimonies. The testimonies did not indicate that the author’s brother had been tortured or that the police officers had been aware of any torture. It transpired that the author’s brother had been found by his cellmates, who called the officer on duty, who administered first aid. No sounds of fighting were heard. The case file contains the suicide note of the author stating that no one is guilty of his death. Further, the investigative bodies took all possible measures to investigate the criminal case. All petitions of the family of the victim and their lawyers were reviewed and responded to in a timely manner. 6.3 The State party submits that during the detention of the author’s brother, between 7 and 20 November 2005, the Prosecutor’s Office of Osh twice visited the detention centre The author’s brother did not raise any complaints regarding torture during those visits. Further, employees of the police station were disciplined for the violations that they had committed.18 6.4 The State party contests the author’s submission that it had declared his brother’s death a suicide. It maintains that at the time of the submission the investigative bodies had not made an official statement regarding the suicide of the author’s brother and the investigation continued. On 29 February 2012, the Prosecutor’s Office of Osh, after reviewing the case, revoked the decision to terminate the investigation and sent it to the Investigative Department of the Osh Directorate of Internal Affairs for additional investigation. The State party also submits that the domestic legislation defines torture in article 305-1 of the Criminal Code and classifies it as malfeasance in office. The State party 18 8 The State party does not specify what violations had been committed by the police officers.