waived its right to contest other admissibility criteria. Decision on admissibility 6.At its twenty-fifth session (November 2000), the Committee considered the admissibility of the complaint. The Committee ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter had not been and was not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. Regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee took note of the arguments made by the complainants and noted that it had not received any argumentation or information from the State party on this issue. Referring to rule 108, paragraph 7, of its rules of procedure, the Committee declared the complaint admissible on 23 November 2000. State party’s observations on the merits 7.Notwithstanding the Committee’s call for observations on the merits, transmitted by a note of 5 December 2000, and two reminders of 9 October 2001 and 11 February 2002, the State party has not made any further submission. Complainants’ additional comments on the merits 8.1By a letter of 6 December 2001, the complainants transmitted to the Committee additional information and comments on the merits of the case. In the same submission, the complainants have transmitted detailed information on different questions that were asked by the Committee, namely, on the presence and behaviour of the police during the events, the actions that have been taken visà-vis the local population, the relations between the different ethnic groups, and their respective titles of property. 8.2With regard to the presence and behaviour of the police during the events and the actions that have been taken vis-à-vis the local population, the complainants give a detailed description of the facts referred to in paragraphs 2.1 to 2.29 above. 8.3With regard to the general situation of the Roma minority in Serbia and Montenegro, the complainants contend that the situation has remained largely unchanged after the departure of President Milosevic. Referring to a report that was earlier submitted by the Humanitarian Law Center to the Committee against Torture and to the 2001 Annual Report of Human Rights Watch, the complainants submit that the situation of Roma in the State party is very preoccupying and emphasize that there have been a number of serious incidents against Roma over the last few years while no significant measures to find or prosecute the perpetrators or to compensate the victims have been taken by the authorities. 8.4With regard to the property titles, the complainants explain that most were lost or destroyed during the events of 14 and 15 April 1995 and that this was not challenged by the State party’s authorities during the civil proceedings. 8.5The complainants then make a thorough analysis of the scope of application of articles 1, paragraph 1, and 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention. They first submit that the European Court of Human Rights has ascertained in Ireland v. United Kingdom and in the Greek case, that article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights also covered “the infliction of mental suffering by creating a state of anguish and stress by means other than bodily assault”.c 8.6Moreover, the complainants reiterate that the assessment of the level of ill-treatment also depends on the vulnerability of the victim and should thus also take into account the sex, age, state of health or ethnicity of the victim. As a result, the Committee should consider the Romani ethnicity of the victims in their appreciation of the violations committed, particularly in Serbia and Montenegro. In the same line, they reiterate that a given level of physical abuse is more likely to constitute a treatment prohibited by article 16 of the Convention if it is motivated by racial considerations. 8.7Concerning the devastation of human settlements, the complainants refer to two cases that were decided by the European Court of Human Rights and whose factual circumstances were similar to the one at issue.d The European Court considered in both cases that the burning and destruction of homes as well as the eviction of their inhabitants from the village constituted acts that were contrary to article 3 of the European Convention. 8.8Concerning the perpetrators of the alleged violations of articles 1 and 16 of the Convention, the complainants submit that although only a public official or a person acting in an official capacity could be the perpetrator of an act in the sense of either of the above provisions, both provisions state that the act of torture or of other ill-treatment may also be inflicted with the consent or acquiescence of a public official. Therefore, while they do not dispute that the acts have not been committed by the police officers or that the latter have not instigated them, the complainants consider that they have been committed with their consent and acquiescence. The police were informed of what was going to happen on 15 April 1995 and were present on the scene at the time the attack took place but did not prevent the perpetrators from committing their wrongdoing. 8.9With regard to the positive obligations of States to prevent and suppress acts of violence committed by private individuals, the complainants refer to general comment 20 of the Human Rights Committee on article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights according to which this provision covers acts that are committed by private individuals, which implies a duty for States to take appropriate measures to protect everyone against such acts. The complainants also refer to the United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials and the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, which have provisions with a similar purpose. 8.10On the same issue, the complainants cite a decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras according to which: “[a]n illegal act which violates human rights and which is initially not directly imputable to a State (for example, because it is the act of