CCPR/C/119/D/2146/2012 claimed in his initial submission to the Committee was continuing as of the date of the submission of the complaint. In this connection, the Committee notes that, after the entry into force of the Optional Protocol, the author claimed that he had been continuously subjected to torture and that his claims were never adequately addressed by the authorities. Additionally, the Prosecutor General’s Office, on 7 December 2010 and 24 August 2011 (i.e., after the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party), refused to bring a supervisory review request to the Supreme Court or to otherwise verify the author’s claims of torture. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that it is not precluded ratione temporis from considering the present communication under article 7, read separately and in conjunction with article 2 (3). 7.6 The Committee has noted the author’s claims under articles 14 and 18 of the Covenant (see paras. 3.4 and 3.5 above). In the absence of any further pertinent information on file, however, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, these allegations. Accordingly, it declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.7 In the Committee’s view, the author has sufficiently substantiated, for the purposes of admissibility, his remaining claims raising issues under article 7, read separately and in conjunction with article 2 (3), and article 10 of the Covenant, declares them admissible and proceeds with their consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee first takes into consideration the author’s allegations that he was, on a number of occasions, tortured and otherwise mistreated. The Committee notes that the author reported torture both during his first official interrogation on 7 February 2009 and throughout the court trial. The Committee also notes that the author and his aunt provided the prosecutor’s office and the courts with specific evidence of torture that the author had suffered at the hands of law enforcement officers, such as injuries to his legs, but the claims of torture were never adequately investigated. The Committee considers that, in the circumstances of the present case, and in particular in the light of the State party’s inability to explain the alleged mistreatment on a number of occasions, due weight should be given to the author’s allegations. 8.3 Regarding the State party’s obligation to properly investigate the author’s claims of torture, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which criminal investigation and consequential prosecution are necessary remedies for violations of human rights, such as those protected by article 7 of the Covenant. 30 The Committee underscores two episodes from the author’s many allegations. Firstly, the author complained about torture which allegedly occurred during his initial interrogation on 7 February 2009 to force him to confess guilt. The Committee notes the author’s allegations that he was beaten and not allowed to use his wheelchair. The author claims that he filed an immediate complaint. According to copies of the responses from the authorities, on 20 March 2009,31 they simply rejected the author’s allegations, without providing any explanation or conducting a formal investigation. On 10 April 2009, a similar letter rejecting the author’s allegations was issued by the prosecutor’s office, again, without any explanation.32 In addition, on 23 April 2009, the author’s request to investigate allegations of torture was rejected by the Investigation Department of the National Security Committee, again without providing any details or reasons for the rejection. Finally, the author’s request to investigate his claims of torture was rejected by the Committee’s Investigation Department in Astana in a letter dated 20 November 2009. 30 31 32 See the Committee’s general comments No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, para. 14, and No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligations imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 18. Letter from the National Security Committee Department in Astana. Letter from a deputy city prosecutor of Astana. 11