CAT/C/55/D/494/2012
prohibit the use of statements obtained under torture as evidence. These facts make
monitoring interrogations more difficult.
3.6
The complainant indicates that the State party failed to meet the requirement under
article 12 of the Convention to conduct a prompt and impartial investigation. The
complainant applied to the competent authorities repeatedly without obtaining satisfaction
(see paras. 2.6-2.9 above).
3.7
According to the complainant, the State party violated article 13, under which it
must provide the complainant with effective remedies by investigating and punishing the
perpetrators of the alleged violations. The complainant argues that, despite numerous
complaints and steps taken to make his case, no criminal proceedings were initiated. The
complainant notes that, according to the Committee’s jurisprudence, article 13 does not
require formal lodging of a complaint of torture under the procedure laid down in national
law, nor does it require an express statement of intention to bring a criminal case. It is
enough for the victim simply to bring the facts to the attention of an authority of the State
for the State to be obliged to consider it as a tacit but unequivocal expression of the victim’s
wish that the facts should be promptly and impartially investigated. 6 The complaints and
steps made by the complainant, however, turned out to be in vain, resulting in a violation of
article 13 of the Convention.
3.8
The complainant indicates, furthermore, that article 14 of the Convention was
violated, as the State party failed to comply with the obligation to ensure the complainant’s
right to compensation. He refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence that article 14 recognizes
not only the right to fair and adequate compensation, but also requires States parties to
ensure that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress. 7 The failure to follow up on the
complaints of the victim and to launch an immediate public inquiry constitutes a violation
of article 14.
State party’s lack of cooperation
4.
On 6 March 2012, 31 May 2013, 14 October 2013 and 16 June 2014, the State party
was requested to submit information concerning the admissibility and merits of the
communication. The Committee notes that it has received no information in this connection.
It regrets the State party’s refusal to communicate any information on the admissibility
and/or merits of the complainant’s claims. The Committee recalls that the State party is
obliged, pursuant to the Convention, to submit to the Committee written explanations or
statements clarifying the matter and indicating the steps, if any, that the State might have
taken to remedy the situation. In the absence of a response from the State party, due weight
must be given to the complainant’s allegations, which have been properly substantiated.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Consideration of admissibility
5.1
Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must
decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has
ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (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.
6
7
The complainant cites communications No. 59/1996, Blanco Abad v. Spain, Views adopted on 14
May 1998, para. 8.6; and No. 291/2006, Ali v. Tunisia, decision adopted 21 November 2008, para.
3.13.
See communication No. 341/2008, Hanafi v. Algeria, decision adopted 3 July 2011, para. 9.7.
5