CAT/C/57/D/551/2013 7.7 With regard to the complainant’s claims relating to article 14, the Committee recalls that article 14 of the Convention not only recognizes the right to fair and adequate compensation but also requires States parties to ensure that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress.17 The Committee considers that redress should cover all the harm suffered by the victim, including restitution, compensation, rehabilitation of the victim and measures to guarantee that there is no recurrence of the violations, while always bearing in mind the circumstances of each case. 18 The Committee notes that no investigation has been conducted into the acts of torture and that no provision has been made for rehabilitation measures in respect of the after-effects reported by the complainant, including a fracture of the left big toe, back pain, a fracture of the jaw, hearing difficulties and psychological sequelae. The Committee therefore considers that the complainant was deprived of his rights under article 14 of the Convention to redress and compensation. 7.8 In addition, the Committee points out that, according to the complainant, the State party violated its obligations under article 15 of the Convention, insofar as the claimant was convicted on the basis of a confession obtained under torture. In this connection, the Committee observes that, according to the complainant, the confession he signed under torture was used to justify keeping him in detention for over 6 years. The Committee notes that the State party neither refuted these allegations nor included any specific information on this question in its observations to the Committee. The Committee recalls that the general nature of the provisions of article 15 of the Convention derives from the absolute nature of the prohibition of torture and therefore implies an obligation for any State party to verify that statements included in proceedings under its jurisdiction have not been made under torture.19 The Committee considers that the State party was under an obligation to review the complainant’s claims that his confession had been obtained under torture, and that by not carrying out such a review and by using his confession in the judicial proceedings against the complainant, the State party violated its obligations under article 15 of the Convention.20 7.9 The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of articles 1, 2 (1) and 11 to 16 of the Convention. 7.10 In accordance with rule 118 (5) of its rules of procedure, the Committee urges the State party to: (a) conduct an impartial investigation into the events in question with a view to the prosecution, trial and punishment of anyone found to be responsible for acts of torture. This investigation should include medical examinations of the complainant, in accordance with the Istanbul Protocol; (b) provide the complainant with redress and the means of rehabilitation for the acts of torture committed; and (c) take steps to ensure that, in the case in question, it fulfils its obligations under article 15 of the Convention. The State party is, moreover, under an obligation to prevent the recurrence of any such violations in the future. The Committee urges the State party to inform it, within 90 days of the date of transmittal of this decision, of the measures it has taken in response to the views expressed above, notably the provision of adequate and fair compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. 17 18 19 20 10 See communication No. 291/2006, Saadia Ali v. Tunisia, decision adopted on 21 November 2008, para. 15.8. See Saadia Ali v. Tunisia, para. 15.8; and Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.6. See Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.7; and communication No. 419/2010, Ktiti v. Morocco, decision adopted 26 May 2011, para. 8.8. See Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.7. GE.16-13706