CAT/C/51/D/441/2010 were brought against the perpetrators or any remedy provided to the complainant. In addition, the Committee notes that it remains uncontested that the complainant was never promptly informed by the authorities who investigated his complaints, as to whether the investigation was being carried out and at what stage the investigation was.12 9.6 In the light of the above findings and based on the materials before it, the Committee concludes that the State party has failed to comply with its obligation to carry out a prompt and impartial investigation into the complainant’s allegations of torture, in violation of article 12 of the Convention. The Committee considers that the State party has also failed to comply with its obligation, under article 13, to ensure the complainant’s right to complain and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by the competent authorities. 9.7 With regard to the alleged violation of article 14 of the Convention, the Committee notes that it is uncontested that the absence of criminal proceedings deprived the complainant of the possibility of filing a civil suit for compensation since, according to domestic law, the right to compensation for torture arises only after conviction of the responsible officials by a criminal court. The Committee recalls in this respect that article 14 of the Convention 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. The 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. The Committee considers that, notwithstanding the evidentiary benefits to victims afforded by a criminal investigation, a civil proceeding and the victim’s claim for reparation should not be dependent on the conclusion of a criminal proceeding. It considers that compensation should not be delayed until criminal liability has been established. A civil proceeding should be available independently of the criminal proceeding and necessary legislation and institutions for such civil procedures should be in place. If criminal proceedings are required by domestic legislation to take place before civil compensation can be sought, then the absence or delay of those criminal proceedings constitute a failure on behalf of the State party to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. The Committee emphasizes that disciplinary or administrative remedies without access to effective judicial review cannot be deemed to constitute adequate redress in the context of article 14. On the basis of the information before it, the Committee concludes that the State party is also in breach of its obligations under article 14 of the Convention.13 9.8 With regard to the alleged violation of article 15 of the Convention, the Committee observes that the broad scope of the prohibition in article 15 of the Convention, proscribing the invocation of any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture as evidence in any proceedings is a function of the absolute nature of the prohibition of torture and implies, consequently, an obligation for each State party to ascertain whether or not statements admitted as evidence in any proceedings for which it has jurisdiction have been made as a result of torture14. In this connection, the Committee observes that the national courts failed to address adequately the complainant’s repeated allegations that he had been forced to produce written confessions as a result of torture. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the State party has failed to ascertain whether or not statements admitted as evidence in the proceedings have been made as a result of torture. In these 12 13 14 16 See communication No. 207/2002, Dragan Dimitrijevic v. Serbia and Montenegro, decision of 24 November 2004, para. 5.4. Ibid., para. 5.5. See e.g. communication No. 219/2002, G.K. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 7 May 2003, para. 6.10.