CAT/C/60/D/573/2013 issued a disciplinary punishment, for six months, but they never received any documentation to confirm this. They only managed to obtain a forensic medical report in 2014. 7.2 The complainants reiterate that at the time of their submission to the Committee in 2015, the latest action for investigation of their torture allegations dated back to 21 March 2013, and that two of the individuals whom they accused (T.A. and A.A.) had never been questioned. They reiterated that the State party’s authorities were waiting for the statute of limitations to expire in order to close the investigation. 7.3 In response to the State party’s claim that the first complainant impeded the investigation by waiting to submit a complaint on 19 October 2011, the complainants respond that the first complainant was questioned on 3 November 2010, by an officer of the prosecutor’s office (with the initials D.N.), but that the latter attempted to “convince” him not to file a complaint. Similarly, on 11 November 2010, the second complainant was forced to sign a document withdrawing his claims. The complainants noted that although the State party had referred to the judgment that the European Court of Human Rights had made in Stefan Iliev v. Bulgaria,9 unlike in that case, they had not resisted arrest. 7.4 The first complainant challenges the State party’s claim that his injuries were minor and did not amount to torture, and maintains that witnessing his son being beaten, strangled, subjected to attempted rape and being held for days without the insulin injections that he needed, in order to extract a confession for a crime that he had not committed, in itself constituted torture under the definition in article 1 of the Convention. 7.5 The complainants reiterate that they submitted numerous complaints to different State institutions, many of which had been forwarded to the prosecutor’s office. They request the Committee to declare their communication admissible, to review it on the merits and to find violations of articles 1, 11, 12, 13 and 16 of the Convention. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party has submitted that the communication should be declared inadmissible because investigations were launched by the Investigation Unit of the Tbilisi Prosecutor’s Office on 12 November 2011 regarding the torture allegations made by the first complainant and on 6 November 2010 regarding the torture allegations made by the second complainant, and because the above-mentioned investigations were unified into one proceeding in 2013 and these were still ongoing. However, the Committee notes the uncontested allegation of the complainants that the latest substantive investigative actions in these proceedings took place in March 2012. The Committee also observes that the State party has, to date, not provided any information regarding the outcome of the proceedings. As five years have elapsed since the last substantive investigative action in respect of these cases, the Committee is of the view that the application of domestic remedies has been unreasonably prolonged, rendering them ineffective. Thus, the Committee is not precluded by article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention from examining the present communication. 9 8 The State party referred to the European Court of Human Rights: Soering v. the United Kingdom (application No. 14038/88), judgment of 7 July 1989, para. 100; and Stefan Iliev v. Bulgaria, (application No. 53121/99), judgment of 10 May 2007.