CAT/C/46/D/341/2008 the families of the victims.2 Despite repeated requests from the family of the victim, no investigation has been undertaken, even 11 years after the event. The complainant thus alleges not only that the State party did not fulfil its obligation to carry out a prompt and impartial investigation, but also placed the burden of proving that charges should be brought on the family of the victim. 7.5 The complainant notes that a procedure before the investigating judge was not, in any case, an available option because, under national legislation, the prosecution service had to take a decision on action to be taken on proceedings initiated to allow the investigating judge to open a case or take up a case referred. The victim’s family was thus deprived of any possibility of bringing the case before the investigating judge because no decision was ever taken by the prosecution service in this case. If the prosecution service had taken a decision not to prosecute, and if the case had been referred to the investigating judge, it would, under article 73 of the Algerian Criminal Code, still have been the responsibility of the prosecution service to indict within five days. If the decision had been not to conduct an investigation, the investigating judge would have had to give a reasoned order to go against the prosecution service’s decision. The complainant intends to demonstrate here that Algerian criminal procedure does not encourage instructing judges to take action where it goes against the opinion of the prosecution. The complainant argues that the State party would not be able to cite a single case in which the investigating judge had been able, in response to a claim for damages, to ignore inaction on the part of the prosecution service and instigate a prompt, efficient and independent investigation into acts of such a serious nature by State officials. 7.6 The complainant notes the expense of bringing proceedings before the investigating judge because, under article 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, any complainant who does not receive legal aid must pay to the registry a sum set by order of the investigating judge to cover the costs of the proceedings. She points out that, on the death of her husband, she was left alone to raise her children and was thus in a precarious financial situation. The conditions for obtaining legal aid are subject to a complex procedure initiated by a request to the State prosecutor. Given the attitude of the prosecutor in this case, the complainant believes that the request would not have been granted. 7.7 The complainant argues that article 45 of the implementing legislation of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation has the direct effect of depriving plaintiffs of any useful remedy, even in the event of serious violations of fundamental rules such as the prohibition of torture. The Committee has itself expressed concern at the impunity of State officials since the Charter was adopted, as it provides for amnesty from prosecution for State officials and prohibits any prosecution for acts committed by those State officials in the context of the national tragedy. The complainant recalls that the Committee found the provisions not consistent with the obligation of every State party to conduct an impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed on territory under its jurisdiction, to prosecute the perpetrators of such acts and to compensate the victims.3 The complainant adds that the Committee drew the State party’s attention to paragraph 5 of its general comment No. 2 (2007) in which it expressed the view that amnesties or other impediments which preclude or indicate unwillingness to 2 3 10 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/DZA/CO/3, 16 May 2008). CAT/C/DZA/CO/3, 16 May 2008, para. 11. GE.11-43885