CCPR/C/130/D/2820/2016 year disciplinary sanction of censure for his behaviour and assigned to another office; 15 and the other officer was given a six-month disciplinary sanction of censure.16 4.3 The State party notes that, on 10 October 2005, the author filed a lawsuit (No. 1674/05) before the Plovdiv District Military Prosecutor’s Office. It resulted in a refusal to initiate pretrial proceedings and the closing of the case. On 9 December 2005, the order was reversed by the Appellate Military Prosecutor’s Office, upon appeal by the author. On 17 January 2006, after the completion of a new investigation, a new order was issued by the Military Prosecutor’s Office refusing to initiate pretrial proceedings. On 6 February 2006, the order was again reversed by the Appellate Military Prosecutor’s Office, following an appeal lodged by the author, and the initiation of criminal proceedings was ordered. 4.4 The State party indicates that, on 16 February 2006, pretrial proceedings were initiated for a crime under article 131 (1), read in connection with article 130 (1), and article 20 (2) of the Criminal Code. A time limit of 60 days was set for the investigation to be completed, which was subsequently extended twice. Between 27 and 29 March 2006, inspections of the scene of the incident and the home of a witness and other investigative actions were conducted. On 26 April 2006, a forensic medical report on the injuries suffered by the author was issued. During the investigation, eyewitnesses of the incident were interrogated. 4.5 The State party explains that, on 30 May 2006 and on 20 June 2006, criminal charges were brought against the two defendants for a crime under the articles of the Criminal Code cited above. The criminal proceedings concluded on 17 January 2008, with judgment No. 3 of the Military Appellate Court upholding the verdict of not guilty issued by the Plovdiv Military Court.17 4.6 The State party considers that the communication should be declared inadmissible because domestic remedies have not been exhausted. It asserts that the author, in accordance with article 349 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, could have requested the cassation review of the judgment before the Supreme Court of Cassation. 4.7 Regarding the effectiveness of the investigation, the State party argues that the time between the incident (15 September 2005) and the acquittal of the defendants (17 January 2008), amounting to 2 years and 4 months, is within the reasonable time limits. It adds that the author did not lodge any complaint in the course of the pretrial proceedings and that the errors found in the evidence collection process during the investigation did not significantly affect the decisions issued by the Prosecutor’s Office or the court judgments establishing the legal nature of the offence.18 The State party asserts that the criminal proceedings conducted satisfied the European standards of effective investigation, given that the requirements of timeliness and speediness, completeness and comprehensiveness, impartiality and independence and the possibility for public supervision were met. 4.8 The State party argues that the author was allowed to exercise his rights as a victim of a crime. All prerequisites were fulfilled, including the possibility of bringing civil action for damages. The author took part in the first instance and appellate proceedings, both personally and through an attorney authorized by him, including when the hearing in the case resumed after having been adjourned. Therefore, according to the State party, the author was provided with all effective remedies required under article 2 (3) of the Covenant, and the State party notes that the article contains no mandatory requirement for the State party to provide compensation. 4.9 The State party asserts that the author’s allegation of a violation of article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), is also unfounded, because he was allowed to exercise his rights within the criminal proceedings. The State party indicates that the author’s case was considered in accordance with the general procedure, even though the conditions were met to be considered in accordance with the procedure provided for in chapter 28 of the Code of 15 16 17 18 6 The State party indicates that, on 3 January 2012, the officer’s service at the Ministry of the Interior was terminated, at his request. The State party indicates that, on 21 November 2005, the officer’s service at the Ministry of the Interior was terminated, at his request. For further details regarding the criminal proceedings, please refer to paras. 2.5 to 2.9 above. The State party does not provide further explanation of this argument.