CCPR/C/125/D/2322/2013 Author’s comments on the State party’s additional observations 7.1 In a letter dated 24 December 2014, the author noted that the State party’s assertion that the police officers did not exceed their authority is based exclusively on the testimonies of the police officers who detained him. However, there are also testimonies of other witnesses that have not been properly assessed by the investigation. For example, witness S testified that she saw one of the police officers sitting on top of the author and punching him three or four times in the face. Similar testimony was given by witness K, who was with witness S at that time. Another witness saw the author after he was taken to the office of the traffic police in Olgino and testified during the trial that both the author’s eyes were bruised and he was bleeding. Still another witness testified during the trial that he saw three men kicking the author while he lay on the ground, then handcuffed him and put him in a car. He then saw one of the men washing blood from his hands and shoes at a nearby water fountain. 7.2 The author further notes that if he had resisted his arrest, as the State party submitted, he would have been charged with the additional crime of resisting arrest. The author notes that he received his injuries not as a result of a sudden operation that would have forced the police officers to act in an impromptu fashion; on the contrary, he had been under surveillance, was set up by an undercover police officer and was apprehended by at least three police officers. The author suggests that the police officers knew very well that he was not dangerous or armed, did not possess any martial arts skills and was just a drug user who also had HIV. The author submits that the discrepancies in the officers’ testimonies about the circumstances of his detention show that they lied in order to avoid being prosecuted for their cruel treatment. 7.3 With regard to the State party’s assertion that he has not exhausted all available domestic remedies, the author notes that for seven years the national authorities have purposefully avoided carrying out an effective investigation of his claims; thus, he considers them exhausted and ineffective. Additional observations From the State party 8.1 In a note verbale dated 12 March 2015, the State party again provided information on procedural actions taken by the national authorities to investigate the claims made by the author. The State party notes that between 31 August 2007 and 10 October 2014, the national authorities issued six decisions refusing to open a criminal case into the actions of the police officers who had detained the author. All the refusals, except for the last one, were revoked by the prosecutor’s office/investigation department upon the author’s appeals. The State party submits that the last refusal, of 10 October 2014, is currently under review by the Investigation Committee of the Russian Federation. 8.2 In a note verbale dated 12 May 2015, the State party further submitted that the review by the Investigation Committee of the Russian Federation of the refusal to open a criminal case dated 10 October 2014 has revealed that testimonies of the witnesses suggested by the author were not found to be consistent. For instance, witness S testified that she saw the author being chased and detained by four men, while witness K testified that she saw the author with blood on his face being chased by two men who then tripped him, after which the author fell and was detained. Testimonies of the two other witnesses mentioned by the author in his submission have been found by the Investigation Committee to be unreliable because they were drug users and friends of the author, and also were found to be intoxicated by drugs at the moment of the author’s detention. 8.3 The State party notes that, due to new facts submitted by the author in his communication, the refusal to open a criminal case dated 10 October 2014 was revoked and an additional investigation was launched on 12 March 2015. The State party submits that, as part of the investigation, the author has again been questioned by the authorities; however, he stated that he did not remember the circumstances of his detention. He also claimed that he did not meet with representatives of the NGO “Committee against Torture” after 2007 nor signed a power of attorney in its name to represent him. During the 5