CAT/C/67/D/780/2016 until 9 September 2015. According to the complainant, the conditions in the ward were unbearable, including the lack of space (16.9 m2 for 16 persons) and ventilation, no light bulb or drinking water container, improper bunks, security bars on the windows, poor hygiene and blood stains on the bedding. The inmates were taken to the toilet twice a day and only in the presence of a warden. 2.3 During his stay in the hospital, the complainant was treated with inappropriate medication, some of which had been proscribed in the Russian Federation since 1993, including Galloperedol (twice a day) and Amenosin (weekly). The medication caused shivering, temporary memory loss and headaches. According to the doctor treating the complainant, such medication is administered to persons with incurable mental diseases who are under intensive care. The complainant refers to his sentence and related expert evidence whereby he was considered mentally fit for trial and not in need of forced medical treatment. However, when he objected to the treatment, the medication dosage was increased. As a result, he became bed-bound and could not eat or go to toilet without help. He experienced shivering, blurred vision, loss of consciousness, dizziness and frequent headaches. At the time of the communication, he was still suffering from the after-effects of the treatment, such as constant headaches. 2.4 On 13 January 2016, the complainant reported his ill-treatment and inappropriate placement in the medical ward at KTB-1 to the Investigation Committee at the Office of the Prosecutor of the Krasnoyarsk region, requesting that it open criminal proceedings in his case. On 28 January 2016, the Regional Investigation Committee transferred his request to the Zheleznodorozhnyi District Investigation Committee. In the absence of a response, on 18 February 2016, the complainant requested the Regional Investigation Committee to inform him of the progress that had been made in the investigation. On 11 March 2016, the Regional Investigation Committee again forwarded his request to the District Investigation Committee. At the moment of submission of the present communication to the Committee the complainant received no response. 2.5 The complainant claims that he could not file a complaint to court without a substantive response to his requests from the Investigation Committees. Since the Investigation Committees had unduly prolonged the consideration of his claims, he was unable to exhaust domestic remedies. 2.6 On 9 February 2017, the complainant informed the Committee of two letters he had received from the District Investigation Committee (dated 17 March 2016, received by the complainant on 26 July 2016) and the Regional Investigation Committee (dated 14 October 2016, received by the complainant on 1 November 2016). According to these letters, the complainant’s request to initiate a criminal investigation into the conduct of the staff of the prison hospital was denied owing to the lack of evidence of a crime. The letters indicated that if he disagreed with the decision of the Investigation Committees, the complainant could appeal the decision to the head of investigation authority, to the prosecutor of the Zheleznodorozhnyi district or to the Zheleznodorozhnyi district court in Krasnoyarsk. The complaint 3. The complainant claims to have been a victim of ill-treatment by the medical staff of KTB-1 between 11 June and 9 September 2015. He claims a violation of articles 1, 2, 4, 6, 11, 12 and 13 of the Convention in that regard, without providing further details. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 6 October 2016, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint, stating that the complainant’s claims were inadmissible owing to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and that there was no violation of his rights. 4.2 The State party submits that the complainant has not exhausted domestic remedies under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. He claims that he was deprived of the possibility to initiate proceedings in court in the absence of a reply to his complaint from the Investigation Committees. The State party explains that the complainant had the possibility of requesting compensation for damage caused by the actions/inaction of public servants, including the conditions of detention and matters related to medical assistance, within civil 2

Select target paragraph3