CAT/C/50/D/479/2011 2.11 In June 2003 and May 2004, the complainant’s counsel complained to the Supreme Court under the supervisory review proceedings, requesting a re-examination of the criminal case, inter alia, given that the complainant was subjected to torture and illtreatment during the pretrial detention and had confessed guilt thereunder. The Court rejected both requests. 2.12 In March 2004, the complainant’s mother, acting on his behalf, applied to the European Court of Human Rights complaining about her son’s alleged ill-treatment and forced confessions. In March 2006, the Court found the application inadmissible under articles 34 and 35 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 2.13 On 24 November 2006, the complainant lodged a complaint with the ProsecutorGeneral of the Russian Federation, claiming torture, ill-treatment and the resulting unlawful conviction. The complaint was dismissed on 15 February 2007. Between 15 February 2007 and 3 August 2009, the complainant lodged similar complaints before a number of national authorities, vainly. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that he was subjected to torture and ill-treatment at the initial stages of his detention, as well as while in pretrial detention, and that subsequent failure to investigate his complaints amounted to a violation, by the State party, of his rights under article 1, paragraph 1; article 2, paragraph 3; article 3; and article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention. 3.2 He also claims that his ill-treatment at the police station and in prison amounted to torture aimed at obtaining a confession, in violation of the article 15 of the Convention. The State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 By Note Verbale of 23 December 2011, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility of the communication. It recalled the facts of the case: on 11 March 2003, the complainant was found guilty of rape and murder of Ms. I.B. in a particularly cruel manner, with use of violence, committed with the aim to conceal another crime, acting as part of an organized group. He was sentenced to 21 years of imprisonment. 4.2 During the pretrial investigation, the complainant’s counsel appealed to the Prosecutor’s Office alleging that the complainant had been subjected to ill-treatment. In this connection, an inquiry had been carried out, but the facts of ill-treatment were not confirmed. Consequently, on 29 June 2002, the Prosecutor’s Office refused to initiate criminal proceedings in this respect. The State party points out that no appeal was lodged against this decision. 4.3 Notwithstanding, on 25 November 2011, the First Deputy Prosecutor of the Moscow Region annulled the decision of 29 June 2002 and the respective case file materials were forwarded to the Moscow Region Head Investigation Department of the Investigation Committee of the Russian Federation, for additional examination. 4.4 In light of the above, the State party maintains that the complainant has not exhausted all available domestic remedies, and the communication should be declared inadmissible pursuant to article 22, paragraph 5 (b) of the Convention. 4.5 In addition, the State party notes that, according to the case file materials, in March 2004 the complainant’s mother applied with a similar complaint, on the complainant’s behalf, to the European Court of Human Rights. Her application was subsequently declared inadmissible pursuant articles 34 and 35 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The State party maintains that the present 4