on 21 February 2008, the complainant argues that the violations of her son’s rights continued after 21 February 2008 and that the violations led to results that are violations of the Convention per se. 3.3 The complainant claims that by failing to conduct an effective investigation into claims of torture, the State party has continued to violate her son’s rights after Kazakhstan’s declaration under article 22 of the Convention. The complainant contends that the State party has an obligation to investigate allegations of torture and in cases where it is necessary, to provide remedies both to the victims of violations and to members of their families. 3.4 The complainant also claims that her son continues to suffer from physical injuries as a direct result of torture. The complainant claims that this is another evidence that the violation of the Convention by the State party continue.

###### State party’s observations on admissibility and merits

4.1 On 5 June 2012, the State party submits that, on 2 April 2007, the complainant’s son was convicted under articles 251, paragraph 4, 257, paragraph 2 (a) and (b), 321, paragraph 2 and 58, paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code and sentenced to 7 years of imprisonment. The State party reiterates the content of the verdict.3 On 15 May 2007, the Kostanay Regional Court confirmed the verdict upon appeal. On 7 August 2007, the Supreme Court rejected the supervisory review request filed by the lawyer of the complainant’s son. The General Prosecutor’s Office on several occasions reviewed the complaints of E. Z. regarding the illegality of the verdict against him and regarding the use of unlawful means of investigation. The investigation of the above claims showed that the guilt of the accused was proven by the entirety of the evidence presented at the court hearings and in particular by the testimonies of the victims. The medical examination of E.Z. showed that at the time of the incident he was intoxicated. During the court hearings the court interrogated police officers, from the testimonies of which could be concluded that at the time of his arrest, E.Z. already bore several injuries that he sustained during the fight at a night club on 16 September 2006. The above injuries were recorded and the medical expertise concluded that the injuries correspond to the timing and the circumstances of the case. The court investigation also revealed that several relatives of the complainant’s son are employed in the police station, which investigated the case against him including in the investigation department. The court concluded that the above excludes the possibility that officers of that police station exercised violence against E.Z. 4.2 The State party maintains that no violations of the criminal procedure legislation that would lead to revocation or amendment of the verdict had been detected. No grounds for initiating a supervisory review had been found. The State party also submits that at the time of its submission there was no information regarding any complaints filed by the complainant’s son, because in accordance with Order No.28 of 21 January 2002 of the Ministry of Justice, all records regarding complaints of detainees in Investigation Detention Centers (SIZO) are kept only for five years. Records regarding placements of inmates in cells are only kept for one year and therefore no records are available regarding with whom