CCPR/C/113/D/2054/2011 maintains that the death of the author’s brother cannot be qualified as torture under the domestic law. Author’s further comments 7.1 On 22 June 2012, the author submitted that in its observations the State party for the first time recognized that the inability to find in the locked cell the weapon with which his brother’s injuries were inflicted might be an indication that the cellmates may be responsible. He notes that, in contradiction with its reliance on the suicide note, the State party denies claiming that the death of his brother resulted from a suicide, because the investigation was still ongoing, six and a half years after the fact. He maintains that none of the above responds to his submissions and the violations set out in the initial communication. He reiterates his previous submissions. 7.2 The author submits that the State party accepted the statement of his brother’s cellmates and the police officers at face value, despite the contradiction with other existing evidence, which demonstrates the ineffective nature of the investigation. He further reiterates that the evidence that his brother had been tortured had not been assessed by the investigating authorities. 7.3 With regard to the State party’s submission that the investigation had been reopened, the author submits that the investigation cannot result in charges for the torture that his brother experienced, because under the current legislation the crime of torture can only be committed by officials. The author also submits that the reopened investigation is unduly delayed and that there is no indication that it will be more efficient than the previous investigation. The author maintains that the investigation had been dormant for over five years since the last known investigative action, namely, the flawed analysis of the cigarette pack, and its reopening in February 2012, without any details on what steps have been taken, cannot prevent the Committee from examining the communication. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 8.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2 (a)) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the investigation into the death of the author’s brother was reopened in February 2012, as well as the author’s claim that the investigation has been ineffective and unreasonably prolonged. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that, for the purposes of article 5 (2 (b)) of the Optional Protocol, domestic remedies must both be effective and available, and must not be unduly prolonged.19 The Committee observes that in the instant case the investigation was reopened six years after the death of the victim and that, to the Committee’s knowledge, those proceedings have yet to be finalized. Therefore, the Committee considers that, in the 19 See communication No. 563/1993, Bautista de Arellana v. Colombia, Views adopted on 27 October 1995, para. 5.1, and communication No. 612/1995, Villafañe Chaparro et al. v. Colombia, Views adopted on 29 July 1997, paras. 5.2, 8.8 and 10. 9