CCPR/C/120/D/2435/2014 4.8 The complaints that originated from the alleged incident on 29 September 2010 were examined, nevertheless, by the prosecutor’s office. On 10 October 2010, the prosecutor’s office decided not to launch a criminal investigation into those allegations, due to lack of substantiation.6 4.9 Furthermore, it was ascertained that no violations of the Criminal Procedure Code of Kyrgyzstan had been committed during the court hearings. It has to be noted, however, that torture is a crime that is difficult to prove, especially with the passage of time — it becomes impossible to identify the exact time and exact injuries that were allegedly inflicted. Additional difficulties concern alleged witnesses to torture crimes, who are, as a rule, sharing prison cells and refuse to testify to implicate law enforcement officials. 4.10 The Office of the Prosecutor-General of Kyrgyzstan condemns the use of torture, and takes all measures to prevent such incidents. As such, the authorities carry out inspections of places of detention. Prosecutors are also required to examine defendants to identify incidents of torture. 4.11 According to the Criminal Procedure Code of Kyrgyzstan, all lower court decisions can be challenged within existing appellate procedures, including the supervisory appeal procedure. Such appellate review has been carried out in the case of the author and no violations have been identified. According to article 96 of the Constitution of Kyrgyzstan, the decisions of courts at the supervisory level are not subject to appeal. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 9 April and 10 August 2015, the author provided his comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits. The author submits that the claims that he raised in his initial communication to the Committee do not ask the Committee to overturn the verdict and sentence that he received. Rather, these claims focus on specific violations of the Covenant that the author suffered. 5.2 The author reiterates his claims that he was asked by his father to come to see the law enforcement officers who at the time were unlawfully holding his father. The author’s father himself was subsequently released, but he stayed near the police station and witnessed his son being taken out of the building. His son was beaten up so badly that he required help from two police officers to walk. 5.3 The author also submits that his father could not participate in court hearings, as the State party’s authorities could not ensure the security of relatives of the defendants. This is a clear violation of article 14 (1) of the Covenant, which calls for a “fair and public” hearing. Outside of the courtroom, the relatives of defendants were harassed, insulted and even beaten up. 5.4 The author submits that on 4 August 2010, despite having hired a private lawyer, he was assigned a lawyer paid for by the authorities, and that during the same day, he was severely beaten up by an investigator. The author complained that this had given him acute pain in abdomen, and chest pain. The lawyer for the author demanded a medical examination, which confirmed numerous injuries on his head, stomach, chest, eyes and back. This was entered into the author’s medical records in the pretrial detention facility. 5.5 Starting from 6 August 2010, the author’s lawyer filed several complaints alleging torture. Some complaints were forwarded to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the very institution whose officers had perpetrated these crimes. On several occasions, the complaints were rejected by the prosecutor’s office without conducting an effective investigation (e.g. on 13 August 2011). The courts have also rejected all complaints from the author. 5.6 The author submits that contrary to the State party’s contentions, it is very easy to prove that he suffered torture at the hands of the police officers. The author provides copies of medical examinations, witness statements from his father and from himself, and other documents. 6 The prosecutor’s office decided that no crime was committed on 29 September 2010. 5