CCPR/C/126/D/2699/2015 the village, they visited the grocery store and bought various items. V.V. was at the shop’s counter. Neither K nor the author had any bodily injuries or complained of health issues. When they went out, K. and the author moved further and saw a red foreign car. Two or three people in civilian clothes got out of the car. They identified themselves to K. and the author as police officers and said that they wished to talk about the case of P. (the individual who died). K. and the author were brought to the police station. On the way, the police officers did not threaten them and did not use violence. When they arrived at the police station, both men were placed in separate offices. The police officers handcuffed K.’s hands behind his back and under his knees. He could not see what happened behind his back. At some point, the officers started kicking K. on his back for a period of 10 to 20 minutes. Later, an unidentified police officer appeared and removed K.’s handcuffs. 7.4 K. was then brought to the office of officer B., where the author was already present. K. claims that the author’s face was then swollen. The author asked K. to confirm that P. owed the author 1,000 roubles, and that it was for that reason that the author had hit P.K. refused to testify and was released. According to the author, K., who is also a victim of violence, has changed his deposition and has withdrawn his complaint against the police out of fear. 7.5 As to the State party’s contention that he did not complain to the court about the beatings and threats that occurred during the interrogations, the author notes that he complained about the torture to the judge directly, but the judge rejected his claim. According to the court decision dated 7 May 2014, during the trial, the author complained about beatings and explained that he had confessed guilt under pressure by the police. He explained that three officers had been present but that he only remembered the name of V. In a confrontation with K., the author confirmed that he had confessed out of fear of the police officers present. Again under pressure, he had signed his confession in the presence of a lawyer. 7.6 The author notes the State party’s conclusion that the existence of injuries cannot lead per se to the conclusion that the author was tortured. The author notes that if a person has been brought to a police station in good health but has injuries when discharged, the State party is under a duty to provide a plausible explanation for the origins of the injuries. If it cannot do so, it means that there is a violation of the prohibition on torture and cruel treatment. 7.7 Until his apprehension, the author did not have any visible injuries or complaints about his health. When he left the police station, however, he had suffered injuries to his head and body. This is confirmed by the author’s statements and corroborated by the medical records and numerous witness depositions, including those of medical doctors. Medical record 53 of 24 January 2013 of the Kstovsk Central Regional Hospital indicates that on 23 and 24 January 2013, the author was hospitalized in the hospital’s traumatology department with the following diagnosis: “bruises of the soft tissues of the head”. In addition, in the refusal, dated 23 November 2013, to open a criminal case, the conclusions of the expert N. dated 5 November 2013 were quoted. The expert concluded that injuries in the form of bruises of the soft tissues of the head, as disclosed by the author, constituted a blunt trauma and could have occurred with the use of a blunt object, a hand or a bat. The injuries could have occurred on 23 January 2013. According to the author, if he had been brought to the police station with such trauma, it should have been recorded during the admission procedure. 7.8 The case contains objective medical information to the effect that the author received injuries while in the custody of the police. Neither the investigator nor the State party in its reply provided convincing evidence to explain how the injuries had occurred. 7.9 The depositions of the police officers to the effect that no violence was used against the author are refuted by the evidence. The author notes the seriousness of the injuries and the fact that the aim of the beatings was to obtain a forced confession. He also notes the nature of the police officers’ acts, which caused him severe pain and suffering. In the light of this, the author believes that the above treatment amounts to torture. 7.10 In the author’s case, the law enforcement authorities and the courts failed to assess the torture claims properly. Furthermore, the courts did not exclude his forced confessions, 8