CAT/C/48/D/433/2010 doubt that the letter was produced voluntarily. In the circumstances, the Committee considers that the letter of 18 February 2011 cannot be regarded as a voluntary withdrawal of the complaint and therefore does not preclude the Committee from considering the present complaint. 11.4 The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 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. 11.5 With respect to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee notes that the State party challenges the admissibility on the grounds that the complainant failed to appeal in court the decisions of 1 February 2008 and of 6 February 2011. It observes, however, that the complainant appealed against the decision of 1 February 2008 to the Second Court of the Kostanai city, which rejected the appeal on 25 March 2008. It further takes note of the complainant’s uncontested argument that, although a further appeal to the Regional Court was in principle available, it was not available in practice because the lawyer received the decision after the deadline for appeal had expired. As to the complainant’s failure to appeal the decision of 6 February 2011, the Committee notes that the renewed investigation was launched on 6 December 2010, almost four years after the alleged incidents had taken place. Therefore, the Committee considers that domestic proceedings have become unreasonably delayed21 and that the complainant is thus not required to pursue them further. In the light of the above, the Committee concludes that it is not precluded by the requirements of article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, from considering the communication. 11.6 With reference to article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention and rule 111 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, the Committee finds no other obstacle to the admissibility of the communication and proceeds to its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 12.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 12.2 The Committee notes that the complainant has alleged a violation of article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention, on the grounds that the State party failed in its duty to prevent and punish acts of torture. These provisions are applicable insofar as the acts to which the complainant was subjected are considered acts of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. 22 In this respect, the Committee notes the complainant’s detailed description of the treatment he was subjected to while in police custody and of the medical reports documenting the physical injuries inflicted on him and the long-lasting psychological damage. The Committee considers that this treatment can be characterized as severe pain and suffering inflicted deliberately by officials with a view to obtaining from the complainant a confession of guilt. The State party, while not contesting the medical evidence, denies any involvement by police. It is uncontested that the complainant was in the custody of the police at the time his injuries were incurred, and that he sought medical treatment for his injuries promptly after his release from their custody. Under these circumstances, the State party should be presumed liable for the harm caused to the complainant unless it provides a compelling alternative explanation. The State party has 21 22 See communication No. 119/1998, V.N.I.M. v. Canada, decision adopted on 12 November 2002, para. 6.2. See communication No. 269/2005, Salem v. Tunisia, decision adopted on 7 November 2007, para. 16.4. 15