CAT/C/48/D/433/2010 Additional comments by the representatives 10. By letter of 6 December 2011, complainant’s representatives refer to their previous comments, and add that the State party appears not to understand the continuing violation arguments, as of course it is not alleged that the complainant is still being tortured, but that the failure to investigate is ongoing. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 11.1 Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, the Committee must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 11.2 The Committee notes that the State party contests the Committee’s competence ratione temporis on grounds that the torture complained of (27 March 2007) and the last procedural decision of 1 February 2008 refusing to open a criminal case occurred before Kazakhstan made the declaration under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that a State party’s obligations under the Convention apply from the date of its entry into force for that State party. It can examine alleged violations of the Convention which occurred before a State party’s recognition of the Committee's competence under article 22 if the effects of these violations continued after the declaration, and if the effects constitute in themselves a violation of the Convention. A continuing violation must be interpreted as an affirmation, after the formulation of the declaration, by act or by clear implication, of the previous violations of the State party. 19 The Committee notes that Kazakhstan made the declaration under article 22 of the Convention on 21 February 2008. Although the events complained of occurred before, the DCECC decision of 1 February 2008 (refusal to open a criminal case against police officers) was upheld by the Regional Prosecutor’s Office on 19 March 2008, and the complainant’s further appeal to the Second Court of the Kostanai city was rejected on 25 March 2008, i.e., after Kazakhstan made the declaration under article 22. Furthermore, the General Prosecutor’s Office upheld the DCECC decision on 11 June 2008 by refusing to initiate a criminal investigation. Therefore, the State party’s failure to fulfil its obligations to investigate the complainant’s allegations and to provide him with redress continued after the State party recognized the Committee’s competence under article 22 of the Convention. In the circumstances, the Committee is not precluded ratione temporis from considering the present complaint. 11.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s contention that it should not examine the present complaint in view of the complainant’s notarized letter of withdrawal dated 18 February 2011. It considers that, in order for the withdrawal of a complaint submitted to the Committee to be valid, the text of the request for withdrawal must be unequivocal and it must be established that such a request has been made voluntarily. The Committee does not consider it necessary, as demanded by the State party, that documentary evidence be submitted to challenge the probative value of the notarized letter. Indeed, the Committee has the power of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case.20 In this case, the circumstances in which the complainant signed the letter, as related by the complainant’s representatives, give the Committee substantial reason to 19 20 14 See communication No. 247/2004, A.A. v. Azerbaijan, inadmissibility decision adopted on 25 November 2005, para. 6.4. See also the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1996) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-third Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/53/44 and Corr.1), annex IX, para. 9 (b).