CCPR/C/130/D/2451/2014 State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 In a note verbale dated 25 July 2017, the State party submitted its observations on the merits. It rejects the author’s arguments and notes that, on the basis of the author’s numerous complaints, the Office of the Prosecutor General has conducted several investigations of new circumstances. However, none of them confirmed the alleged facts. 6.2 The State party further notes that the author was found guilty, along with his codefendant, of raping and killing a schoolgirl on 10 September 2006 in the town of Kara-Balta. After the killing, the perpetrators took the victim’s golden earrings and later sold them. Both the author and his co-defendant were sentenced to life imprisonment. According to the State party, in his numerous complaints, the author denied committing the crime and testified that at the time when the crime was believed to have been committed, he was in Bishkek attending his friend K.’s birthday party. During the trial, K. and his partner both testified that the author was at the party starting at 5 p.m. However, since they could not provide any evidence to prove that, their testimonies were viewed critically by the trial court. 6.3 With regards to the author’s claim that his conviction was based exclusively on his confession, which was obtained under torture, the State party submits that in addition to the confession, his guilt has also been proven by the confession of his co-defendant, the testimony of the gold dealer who later bought the victim’s earrings from the defendants and the results of the forensic biological examination. The State party notes that the Zhaiyl district prosecutor’s office has conducted an inquiry into the author’s allegations of torture but refused to open a criminal investigation. 6.4 The State party further notes that on 22 December 2009, the Office of the Prosecutor General opened an investigation based on new circumstances. The investigators could not examine cellular tower logs, as requested by the author, to determine his exact location on the day of the crime, because such logs are kept only for two years. It was also determined that all evidence pertaining to the case had been destroyed on 20 March 2009, in accordance with article 88 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Since the investigation did not identify any new evidence that could have corroborated the author’s claims, the Office of the Prosecutor General closed its investigation on 15 March 2010. 6.5 On 18 November 2011, after numerous requests by the author’s mother, the Office of the Prosecutor General reopened the investigation on the basis of new circumstances, and it sent the case to the Chuy regional prosecutor’s office. However, on 23 June 2012, the Office of the Prosecutor General again closed the investigation, for a lack of new evidence. The author’s mother appealed the closure of the investigation to the Pervomayskiy district court in Bishkek, but her appeal was denied on 10 August 2012. 6.6 On 17 December 2013, the author’s mother again petitioned the Office of the Prosecutor General to have the investigation reopened on the basis of new circumstances, in the light of the testimony of two new witnesses who pointed to another person as a possible culprit. However, that person’s fingerprints and biological examination of saliva and blood did not match the fingerprints and semen samples discovered at the crime scene. In addition, witnesses claimed that the victim’s father knew the suspect, while the father himself denied it. In view of the above, the case investigator recommended that the Office of the Prosecutor General close the investigation. 6.7 On 25 February 2015, the Office of the Prosecutor General ordered additional investigations owing to new evidence presented by the author’s lawyer in the form of a letter from a local DNA expert who concluded that the traces of semen found at the crime scene could not have come from the author. To verify the DNA expert’s conclusion, the prosecutor’s office of the city of Bishkek ordered a complex forensic-biological examination, which found the expert’s conclusion to be unsubstantiated. On the basis of that conclusion, the investigator recommended that the Office of the Prosecutor General close the case. At the same time, the Ombudsman of Kyrgyzstan submitted a complaint against the case investigator accusing him of a lack of impartiality during the investigation. 6.8 In view of the numerous requests from the author, his mother and the lawyers for permission to access the case file materials, the Office of the Prosecutor General ordered an additional investigation to be undertaken and sent the case to the main investigation 5