CAT/C/46/D/341/2008 commander of the military base, the commander of the national gendarmerie in Tiaret, and the Ministry of Justice, but no response was ever received. The Committee notes that the complainant argues that it was the responsibility of the State party’s authorities to initiate an investigation, not that of the family to claim damages in criminal proceedings before the investigating judge, who could not, in any case, have opened a case because no decision, either positive or negative, had been taken by the prosecutor. 8.5 The Committee recalls that the rule on the exhaustion of domestic remedies does not apply if it is established that application of domestic remedies has been or would be unreasonably prolonged, or would be unlikely to bring effective relief to the victim.5 The Committee recalls, in this regard, its previous concluding observations to the State party, in which it underlined the need for the State party to launch prompt and impartial investigations spontaneously and systematically wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed, including in the event of the death of a detainee.6 In the case of offences as serious as those alleged, a claim for damages in criminal proceedings cannot be a substitute for the State prosecutor bringing a prosecution. The Committee concludes that the insurmountable procedural obstacles faced by the complainant as a result of the inaction of the competent authorities rendered the application of a remedy that may bring effective relief to the complainant highly unlikely.7 The Committee also considers that the application of available domestic remedies was unduly prolonged, as the initial complaint was lodged on 12 January 1999 and, at the date of the Committee considering the complaint, no impartial and thorough investigation has yet been undertaken. The Committee concludes that the complaint is admissible under article 22, paragraph 5 (b) of the Convention. Finding no other obstacle to the admissibility of the complaint, it declares the complaint admissible and proceeds to its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee examined the complaint, taking due account of all the information provided to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 9.2 The complainant alleged a violation of article 2, paragraph 1, read in conjunction with article 1, of the Convention, on the grounds that the State party failed in its duty to prevent and punish acts of torture. These provisions are applicable insofar as the acts to which the complainant was subjected are considered acts of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention.8 The Committee notes in this regard that, according to the complainant, the victim himself, before dying from his injuries, told his family that he had been beaten very violently while in detention; that his torturers had not then provided him with the necessary care, despite his serious state of health; and that, given the state he was in, there was a clear intention to inflict suffering on him. The Committee also notes that, according to the complainant, the aim of such treatment was to obtain information, a confession, to punish or intimidate, or bring pressure to bear on the victim because of his 5 6 7 8 GE.11-43885 Communication No. 133/1999, Enrique Falcon Ríos v. Canada, decision adopted on 23 November 2004, para. 6. Committee against Torture, fortieth session, Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 19 of the Convention, concluding observations on Algeria, para. 14 (CAT/C/DZA/CO/3, 16 May 2008). Communication No. 207/2002, Dragan Dimitrijevic v. Serbia and Montenegro, decision adopted on 24 November 2004, para. 5.2; communication No. 172/2000, Danilo Dimitrijeviv v. Serbia and Montenegro, decision adopted on 16 November 2005, para. 6.2. Communication No. 291/2006, Saadia Ali v. Tunisia, decision adopted on 21 November 2008, para. 15.4. 13