CCPR/C/119/D/2125/2011 allegations of ill-treatment, the author replies that, while according to the national legislation the decision on whether to open a criminal case on the basis of torture allegations should be made by the institution responsible within three days, the decision in his case was made more than two months after he submitted his complaint. The investigation was carried out by the police, which was not an independent institution given that the alleged perpetrators were police officers. Contrary to the State party’s statement, the materials and the results of the investigation have not been studied in the trial court, where the presiding judge called on the jury not to take into account the claims of the author about having been tortured. 5.2 The courts did not analyse the reasons for detention of the author. The decisions of the investigator authorizing his detention for two months were not reviewed by the court. 5.3 The expert who carried out the study of the four confessions written by the author only analysed the text of the confessions and did not use free samples of the author’s handwriting. According to the expert K., hired by the author, free samples are essential in order to establish whether the text in question was written by a person in a disturbed mental or physical state. 5.4 None of the evidence mentioned by the State party as a basis for the court’s verdict could prove that the author was involved in the crime. The fingerprint in the bathroom was left by the author when he helped to install the mirror in August 2008, the DNA test was inconclusive and no supporting documents were presented to confirm the author’s debt to Y. The verdict was based on mere assumptions. The State party has not referred to the transcript of home telephone calls, which confirm the author’s alibi. 5.5 The author further rebuffs the observations of the State party, repeating his original arguments and maintains that his complaint reveals violations of the Covenant, as mentioned in the submission. Additional submission by the parties 6. In its note verbale dated 30 June 2016, the State party confirms its previous observations and maintains that the author’s claims should be found inadmissible as unsubstantiated under articles 2, 3, and 5 of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 7. In his additional comments submitted on 30 July 2016, the author reiterated the main arguments of his initial submission. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that he has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to him. In the absence of any objection by the State party in this connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 8.4 The Committee notes that the events in the author’s case happened before 30 September 2009, when the Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party. The Committee observes that it is precluded ratione temporis from examining alleged violations of the Covenant that occurred before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party, unless the violations complained of continue after that date or continue to have effects that in themselves constitute a violation of the Covenant, 6 or an affirmation of a 6 6 See, inter alia, communications No. 2027/2011, Kusherbaev v. Kazakhstan, Views adopted on 25