CCPR/C/116/D/2099/2011 Gryazi Deputy Interregional Prosecutor conducted a verification and issued a ruling refusing to initiate a criminal case. The ruling was reviewed and confirmed by the Office of the Prosecutor of the Lypetsk Region. The files relating to the verification were destroyed on 21 September 2010, as their storage period had expired. During the pretrial investigation the author, in the presence of his defence lawyer, partially admitted guilt, recounting how he had killed the victim. The State party describes the testimonies of the author’s brother and sister and maintains that during the court hearings the latter denied having been subjected to pressure. It maintains that the court fully assessed the available evidence and correctly characterized the acts of the author. The author’s claims were subject to verification by the prosecution in accordance with articles 144 and 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and could not be confirmed. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In comments dated 14 September 2012, the author notes the State party’s statement that the files regarding the verification of his claims by the Gryazi Deputy Interregional Prosecutor were destroyed on 21 September 2010, as their storage period had expired. He maintains, however, that the files were presented to the Gryazinsky City Court by the Office of the Prosecutor of Gryazi much later, in 2012, in the context of proceedings initiated following his complaint of a lack of action by the Prosecutor’s Office. The author provides a copy of a ruling by the Gryazinsky City Court dated 4 June 2012, in which the court mentions explicitly having studied the case file of verification No. 1081 and the review of the above verification No. 6-107-10. The author maintains that the State party is attempting to conceal evidence from the Committee. 5.2 The author also denies that having partially admitted his guilt in the presence of his lawyer excludes the fact that he had been subjected to torture to extract that confession. He submits that his lawyer, upon seeing the author’s injuries after the “voluntary” confession, lodged a complaint that the author had been beaten. The author claims that the State party wishes to conceal the practice of beatings in police stations in the Russian Federation. He maintains that perpetrators are not investigated or punished and, consequently, that he is denied access to justice. State party’s additional observations 6.1 In observations dated 28 March 2013, the State party submits that the prosecution case file concerning the author contains an interrogation protocol dated 9 December 2002, according to which the author was formally questioned in the capacity of accused in the presence of his defence lawyer after his procedural rights were explained to him, including the right not to testify against himself under article 51 of the Constitution. This is confirmed by his signature. At the end of the interrogation, neither the author nor his lawyer had any objections to the content of the protocol, which is also confirmed by their signatures. The protocol contains a note by the author stating: ��Written from my words correctly, read aloud to me. I killed [the victim] in a fit of anger; he was threatening me and asking for the repayment of a loan. I wrote this note myself.”2 6.2 The State party also submits that the court admitted the protocol and the confession of the author in evidence. The court ruled that on the basis of the content of the protocol and the confession, it followed that the author had provided voluntarily testimony regarding the circumstances of the attack against and murder of the victim. The court also concluded that, on the basis of the materials before it, the investigation had been conducted in accordance with the law; it did not establish that any violations of the criminal procedure 2 4 Unofficial translation.