CAT/C/46/D/341/2008 supposed political affiliation; and that there is no doubt that the perpetrators of those acts were public officials. The Committee notes that all the allegations are challenged by the State party, which nevertheless has not provided any other evidence than the victim’s autopsy report, which does not allow any conclusions to be drawn, and statements by fellow detainees of the victim, the records of which have not been submitted to the Committee. 9.3 The Committee considers that the elements of the complaint before it constitute torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention, for the following reasons. First, while in detention under the authority of public officials, the victim suffered treatment so harsh that it led to his death within a very short period of time. While the victim was still in detention, his fellow detainees allegedly alerted the authorities at the detention facility to his critical state of health and urgent need for medical treatment. Despite such action, the authorities do not seem to have called a doctor to examine him at any point. The Committee also notes that the victim died a few hours after being released, which the State party does not contest. With regard to the intention of the officials, the Committee recalls that it is the responsibility of the State party to provide evidence that the treatment of the victim in detention was not intended to be contrary to article 1 of the Convention, particularly in respect of inflicting punishment. Such evidence has not been provided, nor did the State party conduct an immediate investigation proprio motu to establish the circumstances of the victim’s death. In fact, throughout the victim’s detention, and despite concurring witness statements alleging that he had been tortured, the authorities did not carry out any investigation or request a doctor to examine him, even though his fellow detainees had alerted guards to his critical state of health. Furthermore, although the death certificate refers to the “suspicious death” of the victim, the prosecutor has not taken any action in respect of the case, a fact which the State party has not contested. The Committee therefore concludes that the treatment of the victim and his resultant death constitute a violation of article 1 and article 2, paragraph 1, read in conjunction with article 1, of the Convention. 9.4 In the light of the above finding of a violation of article 1 of the Convention, the Committee need not consider whether there was a violation of article 16, paragraph 1. 9.5 With regard to article 11, the Committee notes the complainant’s arguments that the victim was held at Mechraâ-Sfa gendarmerie for three days and was in perfect health before being detained; and that on his release from detention, he was in a serious state of health and was vomiting blood. The Committee notes that, according to the State party, the victim was released on 3 November 1998 because he was suffering from stomach pains; that the complaint mentions a period of three days in detention whereas the witnesses unanimously stated that it was one day; and that the autopsy report by the forensic medical examiner of the Tiaret health sector concluded that acute cardiac failure was the direct cause of death and there were no signs of a struggle or defence in either the external or the internal examination. The Committee is surprised at the State party’s statements, based on the statements of the fellow detainees of the victim, that reject the complainant’s allegations concerning the length of the period of detention. The Committee is also surprised that the only medical examination of the victim that seems to have taken place was carried out after his death; that the victim was released supposedly because he was suffering from stomach pains, whereas it was the responsibility of the officials in charge of the place of detention to conduct a medical examination if such symptoms appeared during the period of detention. In this regard, the Committee recalls its previous concluding observations to the State party, in which it recommended that the State party should ensure that the right of any detainee to have access to a doctor is respected in practice, and to establish a national register of 14 GE.11-43885