CCPR/C/130/D/2451/2014 he was even tried, and 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 and that as a result, once the charges were brought, he and his co-defendant were presumed guilty and had to be convicted. Based on the material before it, the Committee, however, observes that the author has not shown that the above-mentioned facts influenced the courts and resulted in a violation of his rights under article 14 (2) of the Covenant. The Committee also observes that the claim was not raised during the trial or at any time thereafter, and that as a result, domestic institutions did not have the possibility of reviewing compliance with the Covenant regarding the claim. Accordingly, the Committee considers that this part of the communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 8.7 The Committee considers the author has sufficiently substantiated the remaining claims under articles 7 and 14 (1) and (3) (g) of the Covenant for the purposes of admissibility. It therefore declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that on 20 December 2006, several police officers entered a house that belonged to his brother without introducing themselves or providing any official documents, violently beat him on the face with a pistol grip and then took him outside without his coat and shoes. He was pushed to the ground, beaten again, forced into a patrol car and driven away. The author was brought to the Zhaiyl district police station where he was offered vodka, heroin and cannabis in exchange for his confession to a crime. After the author refused, he was beaten with police batons and threatened with sexual violence. According to the author, only two hours after his arrest he found out that his acquaintance Z. had named him as an accomplice in the raping and killing of a schoolgirl on 10 September 2006. Later, the author was taken to the police station in Alekseevka village where he was again subjected to physical violence. After a day of physical and psychological torture, the author confessed guilt. The Committee notes the author’s claim that the beatings continued on 6 January 2007 at the temporary detention facility in Belovodskoe and on 10 January 2007, when he was taken to the Zhaiyl district police station, where the police tried to get him to confess to another unresolved murder. 9.3 The Committee further notes that, on 13 January 2007, the author underwent a medical examination, which revealed that he had sustained injuries to his shoulders and face, caused by a blunt hard object. A copy of the report of the examination was provided to the Committee. The Committee also notes that on 20 January 2007, a further examination concluded that his injuries could have occurred in the period from 3 to 6 January 2007. The Committee further notes the State party’s submission 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. 9.4 The Committee observes that, while the State party reports that it conducted inquiries into the author’s torture claims, it has not shown that those investigations were conducted thoroughly or effectively. The Committee notes that the State party has not provided any response to deny the author’s allegation of torture substantiated by the medical reports. In addition, it has not submitted any information with regard to the author’s claim that the video from the crime scene re-enactment, which was shot after his arrest, showed him with visible injuries to his face and arms. Furthermore, it appears from the submissions of both parties and from copies of submitted documents that the Zhaiyl district prosecutor’s office did not question anyone except for the author himself and the police officers against whom the author had filed a complaint. In addition, the prosecutor’s office did not look into any other evidence before closing its inquiries into the author’s allegations. 9.5 The Committee recalls that a State party is responsible for the security of any person it holds in detention and that, when an individual in detention shows signs of injury, it is 7