CAT/C/41/D/257/2004 Page 7 7.2 The complainant was apprehended for 24 hours at the Regional Police Directorate of Chepelare, where he asked for a doctor and was examined by one prior to being taken to the detention facility. The examining doctor established that he was in a highly agitated state, smelled distinctly of alcohol, shouted and used offensive language. He refused the offer of the administration of a tranquilizing injection. As to his physical examination, the doctor confirmed that the complainant “did not have any marks of bodily harm on his face and head”. On 5 February 2003 at about 12 noon, the complainant was released. He was later charged and found guilty of hooliganism by a judgement of the Chepelare District Court. The Court considered the medical reports produced by the complainant which, according to the State party, concluded that he had suffered a “slight physical injury”. 7.3 On the merits, the State party reiterates its arguments provided on admissibility and maintains its position that it did not violate any of the complainant’s rights. As to the claims of violations of articles 10 and 11, the State party submits that neither of these claims has been substantiated by the complainant. In any event, it provides detailed information on how it has implemented both articles, including the provision of information submitted to the Committee in the context of the consideration of its third periodic report to the Committee in 2004. The State party submits that it was in the context of systematic reviews of its interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices etc. that it issued two documents in 2003, on the procedure to be followed by the police upon detaining an individual and another on the Code of Conduct of policemen. Similarly, the State party contests the claim under article 12, and sets out the sequence of appeals made by the complainant to demonstrate that its authorities did conduct a prompt and impartial investigation. As to article 16, the State party reiterates its arguments made in relation to the admissibility of the complaint with respect to article 1. It refers to its version of the facts, including the author’s violent behaviour upon being asked to leave the hotel, his resistance to arrest and the damage he did to the police car. It argues that he was found guilty by three instances in the State party and reiterates that the officers in question acted lawfully within the meaning of article 78, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph 2, of the Law on the Ministry of Interior. Complainant’s comments 8. On 27 March 2008, the complainant commented on the State party’s submission. He submits that he remained in handcuffs with chains on his legs from 6 am to 10 am and was subsequently detained for 30 hours in a “cage” while handcuffed. He argues that he could not have damaged the police car in which he was driven to prison, as he was handcuffed and had chains on his legs all the time. He submits that only the statements of the two police officers in question were taken on board by the domestic authorities and that even the forensic medical certificate was not taken seriously. Although the certificate was attested to by three doctors, and contains evidence of a large number of injuries, as well as bruising to his kidneys and blood in his urine, it was regarded by the court and is regarded by the State party as merely demonstrating a “slight physical injury”.