CCPR/C/130/D/2820/2016 3.8 The author refers to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in Kehaya and others v. Bulgaria,14 in which the Court noted that the approach of the Supreme Court of Cassation, in its judgment of 10 October 2000, had had, moreover, the effect of providing a “second chance” for the State to obtain a re-examination of a dispute already determined by way of final judgments in contentious proceedings to which another emanation of the State, a specialized administrative authority in charge of restitution – the land commission, had been a party and had been afforded all procedural means to defend the State interest. Such re-examination had apparently been possible without any limitation in time and could only be barred after the expiry of the relevant period of acquisitive prescription. That approach had been unbalanced and created legal uncertainty. 3.9 In the present case, the author considers that the infringement of the principle of legal stability derives from the possibility of reopening completed criminal cases and annulling decisions in force, referred to in article 422 (1) (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in hypotheses formulated in an unclear manner. That provision explicitly refers to the three grounds for annulment in cassation referred to in article 348 (1) of the Code, namely: (a) breach of law; (b) substantive breach of procedural rules; and (c) obviously unfair punishment. According to the author, the blurring of the distinction between the conditions for appeal in cassation under article 348 and the conditions for annulment under article 422 of the Code creates conditions for a contradictory interpretation and arbitrary application of the conditions for annulment. The indefinite and unpredictable situation undermines the principle of legal stability. The requirements of clarity of the applicable law and the predictability of the legal consequences of a given law are implicit in the term “fair trial”. 3.10 The author claims that the State party violated his rights under article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, given that it failed to conduct a fair, effective and full investigation into his allegations of abuse by the police officers. It also failed to provide the author with compensation for the damages that he suffered as a consequence of the violation of his rights under articles 7 and 14 of the Covenant. 3.11 The author requests the Committee to order the State party to reopen the criminal proceedings against the police officers who physically abused him and to provide him with adequate compensation. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In a note verbale dated 12 April 2017, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and the merits of the communication. 4.2 The State party submits that, following the police raid aimed at arresting an alleged drug trafficker, during which the author sustained minor bodily harm, a disciplinary committee was appointed on 16 September 2005 by order of the Director of the Kardzhali District Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior. In the course of the investigation, the author and witnesses gave testimony, and reports were requested from the police officers concerned. The State party included forensic medical certificate No. 264/05 dated 17 September 2005 in its reply. The disciplinary committee established that, despite the resemblance between the author and the person wanted for purchasing narcotics, the two officers had acted in an impetuous and presumptuous way, with a tactically incorrect approach, and were unprepared to react to possible resistance. They did not make sure that the author understood that they were law enforcement officers and used force that was not proportionate or adequate to the situation that arose, even if the author had attacked the officers because he thought he was being assaulted in order to be robbed. The use of force did not end even after the author was rendered harmless, in breach of the provisions of article 84 of the Ethical Code for Officers of the Ministry of the Interior. The disciplinary committee considered that their actions had resulted in harming the reputation of the Ministry of the Interior’s officers. It ordered the following measures: one of the officers was given a one- 14 European Court of Human Rights, Kehaya and others v. Bulgaria, (applications No. 47797/99 and No. 68698/01), judgment of 12 January 2006, para. 69. 5