CAT/C/52/D/478/2011 that it could not be confirmed that the complainant had been subjected to torture. The State party submits that the complainant had submitted numerous complaints in that regard and that the Prosecutor’s Office had repeatedly refused to open a criminal investigation, with the latest refusal dated 27 December 2008, since no evidence of a crime had been found. The complainant appealed the 27 December 2008 decision to Avtozavodsky District Court, which rejected his appeal on 22 June 2009. His subsequent cassation appeal was rejected too, on 21 August 2009, by Samara Regional Court. The court decisions confirm the conclusion of the investigation that no crime took place. Accordingly, the complainant’s communication “is not subject to review under article 22 of the Convention”. Complainant’s further information 7.1 On 17 September 2012, the complainant made reference to articles 9, 10, 11, 95 and 108 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and maintains that his detention in violation of Federal Law No. 103 on the detention in custody of suspects and those accused of having committed crimes constituted a violation of the Criminal Procedure Code. He further makes reference to a ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation that stated that not only should the decision on a case be just but so should the entire criminal procedure.1 He also alleges other violations of the Criminal Procedure Code. 7.2 The complainant also submits that he was not provided with a lawyer at the time of his arrest, initial detention and initial interrogation. The complainant further submits that, immediately after his arrest, the head of the Regional Police Department in Tolyatti subjected him to a beating and threatened him with further beatings if he did not provide a confession with content as requested by the investigator. He submits that he was subjected to further beatings during his detention in the temporary confinement ward and that he was denied medical assistance. He submits that he is only referring to the beating and the threats for information purposes, because he has no documentary evidence and because his complaints were not registered and processed. He also submits that the defence lawyer appointed ex officio did not take any measures to prevent him from being tortured, and “hid the facts”. The complainant reiterates that he was kept in the temporary confinement ward in order to break him physically and morally and to prevent him from preparing his defence. State party’s further observations 8.1 On 28 March 2013, the State party reiterated the circumstances relating to the conviction against the complainant. It submits that an analysis of the complainant’s submissions to the Committee shows that he is trying to achieve a review of the verdict against him and is therefore abusing his right to submission. The State party maintains that the complainant’s allegations that he was denied a defence attorney and was subjected to beatings by law enforcement officials do not correspond to reality. According to the case file, on 12 December 2000, the complainant made a confession to the police; he was questioned as a witness and it was explained to him that, in accordance with article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, he was not obliged to testify against himself. He was arrested on 13 December 2000 at 10 p.m. and again his rights under article 51 of the Constitution were explained to him, which is evidenced by his signature. He stated in the protocol that he did not require the assistance of a lawyer. On 15 December 2000, as the result of a ruling by the investigator responsible, the complainant was detained on remand and was declared to be an accused. His rights were explained to him, including his right to defence, in the presence of a lawyer, all of which is confirmed by his signature on the 1 6 The complainant refers in particular to Constitutional Court ruling No. 11-P, dated 27 June 2000.