effective measures to prevent acts of torture and used its own security forces to submit the complainant to acts comparable to acts of torture. The aim was to punish and intimidate her because of what she had said to the official. She also claimed that the acts of torture to which she was subjected were not an isolated incident or mistake. According to her, the widespread use of torture by the Tunisian security forces has been widely documented, but the serious concerns expressed by the Committee and other treaty bodies about practices affecting detainees did not seem to have led to a review of the standards and methods that could put an end to such abuse. The Committee took note of the complaint submitted and the supporting medical certificates describing the physical injuries inflicted on the complainant, which can be characterized as severe pain and suffering inflicted deliberately by officials with a view to punishing her for her words addressed to the registrar of the Court of First Instance in Tunis. It considered that the acts to which the complainant was subjected amounted to acts of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. In the light of the finding of a violation of article 1 of the Convention, the Committee decided not to consider whether there was a violation of article 16, paragraph 1, as the treatment suffered by the complainant in breach of article 1 of the Convention exceeded the treatment encompassed in article 16. Regarding articles 2 and 11, the Committee concluded that the documents communicated to it provided no proof that the State party had failed to discharge its obligations under these provisions of the Convention. The Committee also considered that a delay of 23 months before initiation of an investigation into torture allegations was excessive and did not meet the requirements of article 12 of the Convention. Nor did the State party fulfil its obligation under article 13 to ensure that the complainant had the right to complain to and to have her case promptly and impartially investigated by its competent authorities. Given the length of time that has elapsed since the complainant attempted to initiate proceedings at the domestic level and given the lack of information from the State party concerning the completion of the investigation which was still under way at the time the complaint was considered, the Committee concluded that the State party has also breached its obligations under article 14 of the Convention. 85. In complaint No. 316/2007 (L.J.R. v. Australia), the complainant claimed that his extradition to the United States of America would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. He also claimed that while being held in Australian prisons, he was subjected to treatment amounting to torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by other inmates or by prison guards. At the admissibility stage, the Committee considered that the complainant’s allegations that he would not have a fair trial and that, despite the assurances given, he might be sentenced to death fell outside the scope of the Convention. On the merits, the Committee concluded that the complainant’s allegations remained of a general nature and that he did not provide specific evidence about the ill-treatment he alleged to had been subjected to when questioned by the Californian police. No significant evidence was provided either that the conditions in the prison or prisons in which he would be held in California generally amount to torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention, or that the circumstances of his case were such that he would be subjected to treatment falling under that provision. Furthermore, the State party considered that the United States was bound by the assurances it provided to the effect that the author, if found guilty, would not be sentenced to death penalty. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Committee found that the complainant has failed to substantiate his claim that he would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture upon his return to the United States. 136