CAT/C/63/D/637/2014 based on the complainant’s own explanation that the abrasion on his nose was the result of an accident, and on his request to have the investigation closed. The Committee notes that there is no indication that the investigative department actually questioned the complainant in person at any point, in particular given that his statements were written in detention and under the control of the police officers who allegedly inflicted the said injury. The Committee also notes that the complainant could not appeal effectively against the decisions of the investigative department in the courts, because each time the decisions were quashed and were sent for further investigation by superior officers. Nevertheless, each subsequent investigation reflected almost identically the findings of the previous one. All the above observations tend to demonstrate that the complainant’s case was not promptly and impartially examined by the domestic authorities. Accordingly, the Committee finds that the facts as presented reveal a violation of article 13 of the Convention in the present case. 9.6 The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that his self-incriminatory statements given under torture were retained as a valid evidence by the courts. In this regard, the Committee notes that during one of the hearings in the first instance proceedings, the prosecutor mentioned that the investigations into the complainant’s allegations of torture did not confirm such allegations. Without further clarifying information on file, the Committee assumes that the court must have taken the findings of the investigative authorities as fact and proceeded to treat the statements of the complainant as admissible evidence. The Committee notes, however, that the only investigation mentioned by the parties in their submissions is the one initiated in 2007. It concerned only the abrasion that the complainant had on his nose, reported in the SIZO medical report dated 5 October 2007. The investigation documents do not mention any of the other injuries reported in the medical certificate dated 22 September 2007. The Committee recalls that the general nature of the provisions of article 15 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 were not made under torture. 4 The Committee notes that the court did not address either the complainant’s claims about spending many hours in the cold without proper clothing, or his fear for his wife who was also undressed and constantly threatened with sexual violence. In the light of the above, the Committee concludes that the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan, acting as a trial court, failed to assess thoroughly the complainant’s claims that his self-incriminatory statements were extracted under torture before presenting them as evidence to the jury. Thus, the Committee finds a violation of article 15 of the Convention. 10. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, decides that the facts before it reveal a violation by the State party of articles 2 (1) read in conjunction with article 1, 12, 13 and 15 of the Convention. 11. Pursuant to rule 118 (5) of its rules of procedure, the Committee urges the State party to provide the complainant with an effective remedy, including: (a) conducting an impartial investigation into the complainant’s allegations, with a view to the prosecution, trial and punishment of anyone found to be responsible for acts of torture — this investigation should include a medical examination of the complainant, in accordance with the Istanbul Protocol; (b) providing the complainant with a retrial, in accordance with the principle laid out in article 15 of the Convention; (c) providing the complainant with redress and the means of rehabilitation for the acts of torture committed; and (d) preventing 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 the present decision, of the measures it has taken in response to the above findings. 4 See Niyonzima v. Burundi (CAT/C/53/D/514/2012), para. 8.7; Ktiti v. Morocco (CAT/C/46/D/419/2010), para. 8.8; and P.E. v. France (CAT/C/29/D/193/2001), para. 6.3. 7