CCPR/C/130/D/2451/2014 semen found at the crime scene. According to the author, it was then that the police started to look for an accomplice. Owing to the fact that the author has a prior conviction and that the co-defendant was temporarily staying at his house during the time period in which the crime was committed, the author became a target. The author submits that because the authorities were investigating the crime under a deadline that had been made known to the public, they did not have enough time to conduct a thorough investigation. As a result, once the charges were brought, the author and his co-defendant were presumed guilty and had to be convicted. 3.5 The author further claims that he had no legal assistance for a period of 15 days, contrary to article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant. His appointed lawyer provided no legal assistance and was present only on 20 December 2006, although his signatures confirmed his participation during the whole period of investigation. 3.6 Finally, the author claims a violation of his rights under article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant, given that he was forced under torture to confess his guilt and the court used his forced confession as the main piece of evidence against him. State party’s observations on admissibility 4. In a note verbale dated 20 February 2015, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility of the communication. It claims that on 16 January 2014, the Office of the Prosecutor General of Kyrgyzstan reopened the investigation owing to new circumstances in the author’s case. As part of the investigation, an international request was sent to the law enforcement authorities in the Russian Federation to conduct certain investigative activities on their territory. At the time of the submission of the State party’s observations, no information had been received from the authorities in the Russian Federation. The State party notes that since the investigation of new circumstances in the author’s case remains open, the domestic remedies cannot be considered to be exhausted and the communication should therefore be declared inadmissible. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 4 February, 16 March and 11 May 2017, the author submitted comments on the State party’s observations. He notes that in 2015, the authorities of the Russian Federation reported on the requested investigative activities; however, that information has not contributed to progress in the investigation. 5.2 The author submits that in 2015, new witnesses were questioned by the authorities of Kyrgyzstan. According to witness Ya., the perpetrator was not an ethnic Russian, whereas the author and his co-defendant are. Other witnesses confirmed the author’s alibi to the effect that he was at a friend’s birthday in a different town one hour away when the crime is believed to have been committed. Meanwhile, the exact time of the victim’s death has not been established by the forensic examination. 5.3 According to the author, since 2010, the investigation of new circumstances has resulted in his case being reopened and closed again on several occasions. He notes that the investigation is currently being conducted by the main investigation department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which has no interest in another judicial review of the author’s case because it would reveal that the case had been fabricated by the police. In the light of the above, the author reiterates that all effective domestic remedies have been exhausted. He also notes that since 11 March 2017, he has been on a hunger strike demanding the Office of the Prosecutor General to send his case to the Supreme Court for a hearing based on newly discovered evidence, but to no avail. 5.4 The author also submits a letter signed by the Deputy Ombudsman of Kyrgyzstan, who supports the admissibility of the author’s claims and considers that all available and effective domestic remedies have already been exhausted. According to the letter, there are sufficient grounds for a judicial review of the author’s case; however, for eight years the Office of the Prosecutor General kept reopening and closing the investigation without sending the case to the Supreme Court. 4