CAT/C/52/D/478/2011 3.2 The complainant also submits that the State party violated his rights under articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, by failing to investigate his torture claims. The complainant further submits that the 22 June 2009 ruling by Avtozavodsky District Court violated article 4 of the Convention, because the Court failed to recognize the acts of the State officials, who placed and kept the complainant in the temporary confinement ward, as torture and refused to open a criminal investigation. State party’s observations on admissibility and on the merits 4.1 On 27 December 2011, the State party described the facts regarding the complainant’s conviction. In addition, it submits that his allegations of torture and cruel treatment were studied by the first instance criminal court and that they “could not be confirmed”. It further submits that, on 5 December 2008, Samara District Court reviewed the complainant’s civil claim for moral damages caused by his prolonged detention in humiliating conditions in the temporary confinement ward. The Court found that, in violation of article 13 of the Federal Law on the detention in custody of suspects and those accused of having committed crimes, the complainant was held in the temporary confinement ward from 14 December 2000 to 2 April 2001 and again from 25 June 2001 to 24 July 2001. The Court also found that the complainant’s allegations regarding some of the conditions were true, namely that he had not been provided with bedding or toiletry items, that there was no table, toilet or sink in the cell, that showers were seldom allowed and then only with cold water, and that no walks outside the cell were allowed. The Court stated that other allegations made by the complainant could not be confirmed, namely that there were insects in the cell, that the light was always on, that there was no ventilation, and that he was only fed once a day. The Court awarded the complainant 10,000 roubles of compensation for moral damages. 4.2 The State party submits that, since the complainant was awarded just compensation by the civil court, he has lost his “victim” status and therefore his communication to the Committee is inadmissible. 4.3 The State party also submits that, in 2010, the complainant entered into correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights in connection with his detention in the Tolyatti temporary confinement ward. The State party maintains that his application, registered under No. 47448/10, was declared inadmissible by the European Court, and that his communication before the Committee against Torture is therefore inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention. The State party further submits that the communication is not sufficiently substantiated and constitutes an abuse of the right of submission. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 31 January 2012, the complainant contested the State party’s submission that the first instance criminal court had reviewed his allegations of torture and cruel treatment. He submits a copy of the Supreme Court’s cassation decision, dated 29 April 2002, which states that the allegations by the complainant that he had been subjected to pressure by the investigating officers and that they had used unlawful methods of investigation were unfounded and were not taken into consideration. He further refers to the decision of Samara District Court on his civil claim for moral damages, which confirmed violations of the Federal Law on the detention in custody of suspects and those accused of having committed crimes, with regard to the complainant. He maintains that the above-mentioned decision demonstrates that the criminal courts failed to investigate his allegations and that the verdict against him and the subsequent decisions of the higher courts were based on evidence collected through unlawful methods of investigation. 4