CAT/C/48/D/433/2010 circumstances relevant to the case”, was carried out against the complainant’s will. Furthermore, the State party, while merely referring to a 1978 mental health record, does not explain its relevance to this complaint. No mention was made of this document in the domestic proceedings. Rather than reviewing the clear medical evidence that supports the allegations of ill-treatment, the first response of the authorities was to submit the complainant to a compulsory psychiatric evaluation seemingly aimed at showing that he was mentally ill. 8.9 Kazakhstan has violated its obligations under articles 1, 2, 12, 13 and 14, of the Convention. The renewed investigation of December 2010 was closed again in February 2011 without any meaningful progress or any finding of responsibility and did not provide the complainant with an effective remedy. The first reason given by the State party for closing the renewed investigation is that proving the guilt of the police officers was difficult because of the amount of time that had passed since the infliction of the bodily injuries (3 years and 8 months), thus appearing to admit that the delay had had a direct impact upon the investigation. The renewed investigation did not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality. Its biased nature is confirmed by the fact that, while forcing the complainant to undergo numerous interviews, the investigators were immediately satisfied with the bare denials offered by the police officers involved in the incident. 8.10 The State party has failed to hold anyone accountable for the torture of the complainant or provide access to effective remedies, including compensation, rehabilitation, and adequate reparation for the torture, contrary to articles 12, 13 and 14 of the Convention. The State party does not address the failure to provide redress, but confirms that the complainant is unable to obtain restitution or compensation for his torture because no one has been prosecuted and found guilty. 8.11 The State party has sought to intimidate the complainant into dropping his complaint by forcing him to undergo a psychiatric examination, encouraging his family to pressure him to drop the case and repeatedly interrogating him until, without a lawyer, the police managed to obtain a short note from him refusing to testify further. Given the history of intimidation against the complainant, the Committee should find that there has been a failure of the duty to protect complainants from intimidation (art. 13) and to give effect to the right of individual petition (art. 22). Additional observations by the State party 9.1 By note verbale dated 24 October 2011, the State party submits that the Open Society Justice Initiative and the Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and the Rule of Law are not authorized to represent the complainant before the Committee, in the light of his notarized letter of 18 February 2011 by which he voluntarily withdrew the complaint submitted to the Committee. The arguments of the organizations that they have consulted the complainant and were not instructed to withdraw the complaint, as well as that the notarized letter and the letter addressed to the Prosecutor of the Kostanai Region were written under pressure, are unfounded and not corroborated by documentary evidence. 9.2 It further reiterates its previous arguments that the complainant failed to exhaust all domestic remedies and contests the continuous character of the alleged violations of the complainant’s rights in view of the fact that he is no longer in detention and cannot be subjected to any kind of torture. The State party concludes that the complainant’s allegations are unfounded and requests the Committee not to examine the complaint on the merits. 13