CAT/C/34/D/171/2000 Page 9 I.K. 265/97 of 5 May 1998.5 It submits that, on 25 September 2002, the complainant was still in the Czech Republic.6 5.1 On 25 November 2003, the complainant commented on the State party’s submission and argues that it suggests that as a convicted criminal he is not entitled to complain against police ill-treatment, and that given the circumstances, the investigating authorities did everything to investigate the incident at issue and provide redress. He recalls that the authorities did not interview anyone connected with the incident and ignored the medical certificate documenting the injuries sustained by the complainant. It did not interview the complainant’s sister, who had nursed him after the incident, the doctor who examined him, the police officers on duty the day the incident occurred, or the complainant’s lawyers. Neither did they request the Czech authorities through inter-state legal assistance to interview the complainant. 5.2 He submits that apart from the State party’s failure to investigate the incident, it has failed to provide the Committee with a plausible alternative explanation as to how the victim’s injuries could have been inflicted other than through acts of its agents. In the complainant’s view, by failing seriously to contest the facts and/or the legal arguments put forward, the State party has in effect expressed its tacit, yet clear, acceptance of both.7 Issues and proceedings before the Committee: Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a complaint, the Committee must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention that the same matter has not been, and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. With respect to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee took note of the information 5 No further information is provided on this conviction. It does not state for how long the complainant has been in the Czech Republic. 7 In this regard, he refers to decisions of the Human Rights Committee in particular Communication No. 88/1981, Gustavo Raul Larrosa Bequio v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 29 March 1983, para. 10.1. 6