CAT/C/60/D/651/2015 4.6 The evidence that was gathered during the preliminary investigation was reviewed again by the Office of the Prosecutor General 4 which, on 20 March 2015 decided to reexamine the case. On 22 April, this examination was discontinued as well, as it was decided that no crime had been committed. 4.7 On 22 July 2015, upon receiving the complainant’s submission to the Committee, the Office of the Prosecutor General decided to reopen the case. The State party takes note of the claims made by the complainant that he was taken to a forest outside the city, where he was ordered to dig his own grave, and that his wife and other relatives were pressured to testify against him. The results of this re-examination will be shared with the Committee in due course.5 4.8 The State party further notes that, in general, Kazakhstan is implementing several broad measures to combat torture. In 1998, the State party ratified the Convention and in 2009 it became party to the Optional Protocol thereto. Places of detention and imprisonment are regularly monitored to prevent torture. Furthermore, a national preventive mechanism has been created to monitor places of detention. 4.9 The State party has established a system for identifying torture and considering torture complaints. All places of detention must have special torture complaint boxes. The evidence gathered as a result of torture cannot be used in court, and persons subjected to torture must be paid compensation and provided with rehabilitation. Additional information from the complainant 5.1 On 12 June 2016, in reply to the State party’s observations, the complainant submitted that the response conveys mostly general information on combating torture. The State party provides no specific evidence which would refute the allegations made by the complainant. 5.2 The investigation into the claims of torture that was reopened by the State party was closed on 23 December 2015, finding that no crime of torture had been committed. The complainant disagreed with this decision and asked the Office of the Prosecutor General to reopen the case, pointing to serious deficiencies in the investigation. This request was rejected on 6 May and again on 18 May 2016. The State party’s repeated refusal to start a criminal prosecution demonstrates the unwillingness of the authorities to punish police officers who perpetrate torture. 5.3 In its report dated 23 December 2015, the prosecutor refused to initiate a criminal case on the basis of the allegations of torture, despite clear evidence that the author had been tortured. The medical certificate dated 7 September 2011 indicates that the complainant had burn marks on his torso, buttocks and neck, bruises on his neck and feet and scars on his stomach. The second medical examination, dated 30 September 2011, came to similar findings.6 5.4 As indicated in the same report, the complainant was questioned on 7 September 2015 and largely confirmed his previous claim that he had been tortured. In addition to giving the State party’s authorities specific details of the torture, he also gave them the names of several of the alleged perpetrators, including officer K.U., who assaulted him in Terektinsky district police station. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering a claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same 4 5 6 4 It is not clear what prompted this review. The State party failed to provide a copy of the findings of this investigation at the time of consideration of the present complaint. A copy of the decision has been provided by the complainant. The report also mentions that these injuries could have been self-inflicted.