CCPR/C/130/D/2866/2016 4.5 On 30 November 2018, the State party resubmitted its original observations on admissibility and the merits, accompanied by the court decisions concerning officers K. and B. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 22 October 2018, the author provided her comments on the observations of the State party. She submits that the detailed chronology of events and the results of the forensic reports referred to by the State party only reinforce her claims that the injuries suffered by Mr. Fiziyev were inflicted in the building of the State Committee for National Security and caused his death. The State party also confirms that there was not enough evidence to prove that officers K. and B. were guilty of beating Mr. Fiziyev. However, since their acquittal, no further measures have been taken to identify the perpetrators. 5.2 The information provided by the State party about the two investigations does not indicate any result achieved. Three years have passed since the adoption of the final judgment acquitting officers K. and B.; however, no perpetrator has been identified and held responsible. The victim died in the premises of the State Committee for National Security, under the control of State Committee officers. Nevertheless, the prosecutors did not question the management of the State Committee units under whose jurisdiction the torture took place. 5.3 On 1 November 2018, the author’s lawyer filed yet another request for further investigation with the Prosecutor General’s Office. In a letter dated 21 November 2018, the Prosecutor General’s Office responded that the investigation had been suspended on 28 March 2017 owing to the failure to identify a person subject to prosecution and that investigative measures were being taken to identify perpetrators. 5.4 The author expresses fear that the observations of the State party only confirm that there will be no effective investigation of the victim’s death and prosecution of the perpetrators. 5.5 On 12 March 2019, the author reiterated her claims on the lack of effective investigation of her brother’s torture and death. She claims that the State party’s inaction deprives her of effective remedies, because civil claim for compensation against civil servants can only be made within the framework of criminal prosecution. The author claims to have exhausted all effective remedies available to her. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 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. 6.3 The Committee takes note of the claim that the author has exhausted all available effective domestic remedies. 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. 6.4 The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated the claims under articles 6 and 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant for the purposes of admissibility. It therefore declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 4

Select target paragraph3