CAT/C/55/D/553/2013 the allowable duration of police custody has been exceeded; failures to keep registers on persons in custody or failures to ensure that such records are complete; failures to comply with fundamental legal safeguards for persons deprived of their liberty; the absence of provisions that guarantee access to a doctor and access to legal assistance for persons of limited means; and the excessive use of pretrial detention in the absence of regular reviews of its legality and of any limit on its total duration (see CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 10). In the present case, the complainant appears to have remained outside judicial oversight until he was brought before a judge on 14 February 2010, 16 days after his arrest. In the absence of conclusive evidence from the State party that the complainant’s detention was, in fact, placed under its supervision, the Committee finds that the State party has violated article 11 of the Convention. 7.7 With respect to articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the Committee has taken note of the complainant’s claim that, despite his numerous attempts to report the torture inflicted on him, there has been no investigation to shed light on the facts and determine responsibility. On 14 February and 1 March 2010, during the hearings before a judge, he formally complained about the torture he had suffered at the time of his arrest. He repeated his complaints on 21 September and 26 October 2010 during the appeal proceedings he had initiated before the military court, and again on 17 March 2011 before the Supreme Court. He also filed a formal complaint with the Military Prosecutor on 7 November 2012; the outcome is still unknown. The State party has contested and trivialized the complainant’s serious allegations, claiming that the reported acts stemmed from the fact that he resisted arrest, and has simply mentioned the procedure pending since 7 November 2012. It did not, however, provide any information that might allow the Committee to ascertain how far the proceeding has progressed, judge how effective it might potentially be or understand why it is taking so long. The Committee considers that so long a delay in initiating an investigation into allegations of torture is patently unjustifi ed and clearly breaches the State party’s obligations under article 12 of the Convention, which requires it to proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed. By failing to meet this obligation, the State party has also failed to fulfil its responsibility under article 13 of the Convention to guarantee the right of the complainant to lodge a complaint, which presupposes that the authorities provide an adequate response to such a complaint by launching a prompt and impartial investigation. 20 7.8 With regard to article 14 of the Convention, the Committee has taken note of the complainant’s claim that he has not been the subject of any form of rehabilitation designed to ensure that he recovers as fully as possible in physical, psychological, social and financial terms. The Committee recalls that article 14 not only recognizes the right to fair and adequate compensation but also requires States parties to ensure that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress. The Committee refers to its general comment No. 3 (2012), in which it establishes that States parties should ensure that victims of torture or ill-treatment obtain full and effective redress and reparation, including compensation and the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In view of the lack of a prompt and impartial investigation despite the complainant ’s numerous claims that he was tortured, which were corroborated by a range of evidence that the State party has not convincingly refuted, the Committee concludes that the State party breached its obligations under article 14 of the Convention. 7.9 With regard to the alleged violation of article 15 of the Convention, the Committee has noted the complainant’s arguments that he was compelled to sign a statement attesting to his involvement in planning an alleged coup d’état, that he was __________________ 20 GE.15-16736 See communications No. 376/2009, Bendib v. Algeria, decision adopted on 8 November 2013, para. 6.6; and No. 503/2012, Ntikarahera v. Burundi, decision adopted on 12 May 2014, para. 6.4. 15/16