son, of his lawyer and herself were returned to the office of internal investigation of the police. She further notes that the State party argues that the injuries of her son were received as a result of fight on 16 September 2006. She maintains that at about 3:00 on 16 September 2006 her son and Mr. M. were taken to a hospital, where the doctors failed to document their injuries. Only when her son’s condition deteriorated and his relatives brought him to the emergency room of the Mendykarinskiy Central District Hospital, his injuries were documented by the doctor on duty.4

5.2 The complainant also notes the State party’s submission that the complaints regarding torture that her son had submitted while in detention had been destroyed because in accordance with the order of the Ministry of Justice No.28 of 21 January 2002, the period of storage for logs of complaints and appeals was five years, and the period of storage of information regarding placements in cells of persons in custody was one year. The complainant refers to the Human Rights Committee’s jurisprudence that in case a complainant provides detailed information about an instance of torture the State party is expected to properly investigate the allegations.5 She further refers to the Human Rights Committee’s findings that the “burden of proof cannot be only on the author of the communication, especially considering that the author and the State Party do not always have equal access to relevant information to the case.[…] In cases where the alleged violations are confirmed by the evidences provided by the author, and that further consideration of the case depends on the information held in the hands of the state - respondent, the Committee, in the absence of satisfactory evidences and explanations of the contrary from the state, may find the author's statements as justified.”6 She maintains that the State party should provide specific answers and evidences related to the case to the allegations, and that a denial of a general nature is not sufficient.7 The complainant maintains that in the absence of information on measures taken by the State party for a thorough, timely and effective investigation of the torture allegation with regard to her son the Committee should to consider the admissibility of the communication together with the merits of the communication and recognize violations of articles 1, 12, 13 of the Convention against Torture by the Republic of Kazakhstan.

###### State party’s further submission

6. On 11 January 2013, the State party submits that, according to the General Prosecutors Office, the allegations of torture committed by police officers against the complainant’s son had been “disproved”, that the State party did not violate the Convention against Torture and that the communication should be declared inadmissible.

###### Complainant’s comments

7. On 6 March 2013, the complainant submits that she maintains her earlier submissions and that, in the absence of information on measures taken by the State for a thorough, timely and effective investigation of the torture allegations of her son she “would like to ask to recognize the statements contained in the communication as valid”.