- 109 4.12 The State party finally contends that the prerequisites enshrined in the Convention have not been fulfilled in the case at issue and considers that the Committee should declare the complaint inadmissible. Comments by the complainant 5. In a letter, dated 28 July 1999, the complainant stated that he had submitted all relevant information. Decision on admissibility 6. At its twenty-third session, in November 1999, the Committee considered the admissibility of the complaint under article 22 of the Convention. In the case under consideration the Committee noted that the communication was not anonymous and that the same matter was not being nor had been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. It also noted that complainant’s statement that all domestic remedies had been exhausted. The State party did not contest that statement. Moreover, the Committee considered that the complaint did not constitute an abuse of the right of submission of such communications nor was it incompatible with the provisions of the Convention. It held that the observations submitted by the State party concerned the merits rather than the admissibility issue. The Committee, therefore, found that no obstacles to the admissibility of the complaint existed. Accordingly, the Committee declared the complaint admissible on 18 November 1999. State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 In it submission dated 9 June 2000, the State party refers to its previous presentation of the facts of the case. 7.2 In response to a request by the Committee, the State party submits information on the procedure set forth in its domestic legislation to deal with complaints of torture. The State party contends that remedies are available, which in their entirety ensure a prompt and impartial examination of cases of alleged torture that meet the requirements of article 13 of the Convention. Complainant’s comments on the merits 8.1 In his submission of 8 January 2002, the complainant makes additional submission confirming his previous claims. 8.2 He submits that notwithstanding the State party’s claim that adequate investigations were undertaken into the allegations of torture, in fact, the Criminal Investigations Office did not take any adequate or effective measure to identify the fourth person who was present during the ill-treatment. The only inquiry mentioned by the State party was the summons of the complainant to appear at the Criminal Investigation Office to identify a photograph, on 30 August 1996. The complainant argues that he refused to cooperate because, at that time, only police investigations were carried out, without participation of judicial authorities, and the complainant did not trust the independence of these investigations.