9.4Concerning the alleged violation of article 12 of the Convention, the Committee, as it has underlined in previous cases (see, inter alia, Encarnación Blanco Abad v. Spain, case No. 59/1996, decided on 14 May 1998), is of the opinion that a criminal investigation must seek both to determine the nature and circumstances of the alleged acts and to establish the identity of any person who might have been involved therein. In the present case, the Committee notes that, despite the participation of at least several hundred non-Roma in the events of 15 April 1995 and the presence of a number of police officers both at the time and at the scene of those events, no person nor any member of the police forces has been tried by the courts of the State party. In these circumstances, the Committee is of the view that the investigation conducted by the authorities of the State party did not satisfy the requirements of article 12 of the Convention. 9.5Concerning the alleged violation of article 13 of the Convention, the Committee considers that the absence of an investigation as described in the previous paragraph also constitutes a violation of article 13 of the Convention. Moreover, the Committee is of the view that the State party’s failure to inform the complainants of the results of the investigation by, inter alia, not serving on them the decision to discontinue the investigation effectively prevented them from assuming “private prosecution” of their case. In the circumstances, the Committee finds that this constitutes a further violation of article 13 of the Convention. 9.6Concerning the alleged violation of article 14 of the Convention, the Committee notes that the scope of application of the said provision only refers to torture in the sense of article 1 of the Convention and does not cover other forms of ill-treatment. Moreover, article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention, while specifically referring to articles 10, 11, 12 and 13, does not mention article 14 of the Convention. Nevertheless, article 14 of the Convention does not mean that the State party is not obliged to grant redress and fair and adequate compensation to the victim of an act in breach of article 16 of the Convention. The positive obligations that flow from the first sentence of article 16 of the Convention include an obligation to grant redress and compensate the victims of an act in breach of that provision. The Committee is therefore of the view that the State party has failed to observe its obligations under article 16 of the Convention by failing to enable the complainants to obtain redress and to provide them with fair and adequate compensation. 10.The Committee, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of articles 16, paragraph 1, 12 and 13 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 11.In pursuance of rule 111, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the Committee urges the State party to conduct a proper investigation into the facts that occurred on 15 April 1995, prosecute and punish the persons responsible for those acts and provide the complainants with redress, including fair and adequate compensation, and to inform it, within 90 days from the date of the transmittal of this decision, of the steps it has taken in response to the views expressed above. Notes Appendix (Case No. 161/1999 - Hajrizi Dzemajl et al. v. Serbia and Montenegro) Individual opinion by Mr. Fernando Mariño andMr. Alejandro González Poblete under rule 113 of the rules of procedure We are issuing this opinion to emphasize that, in our judgement, the illegal incidents for which the State party is responsible constitute “torture” within the meaning of article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention, not merely “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” as covered by article 16. The failure of the State authorities to react to violent evictions, forced displacement and the destruction of homes and property by individuals amounts to unlawful acquiescence which, in our judgement, violates article 1, paragraph 1, particularly when read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention. We believe that, in fact, the suffering visited upon the victims was severe enough to qualify as “torture”, because: (a)The inhabitants of the Bozova Glavica settlement were forced to abandon their homes in haste given the risk of severe personal and material harm; (b)Their settlement and homes were completely destroyed. Basic necessities were also destroyed; (c)Not only did the resulting forced displacement prevent them from returning to their original settlement, but many members of the group were forced to live poorly, without jobs or fixed places of abode; (d)Thus displaced and wronged, these nationals of Serbia and Montenegro have still not received any compensation, seven years after the fact, although they have approached the domestic authorities; (e)All the inhabitants who were violently displaced belong to the Romani ethnic group, which is known to be especially vulnerable in many parts of Europe. In view of this, States must afford them greater protection. The above amounts to a presumption of “severe suffering”, certainly “mental” but also inescapably “physical” in nature even if the victims were not subjected to direct physical aggression. We thus consider that the incidents at issue should have been categorized as “torture”. (Signed): Fernando Mariño Alejandro González Poblete Complaint No. 204/2002