CCPR/C/105/D/1303/2004 given the particular circumstances of the case, it is not precluded from considering the present communication. 11.3 The Committee notes, as required by article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. 11.4 With regard to the requirements under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the matter raised in the communication is still pending before national courts. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that following the submission of the communication, the State party entered into negotiations with the author for a friendly settlement; and that on 22 September 2005, the author accepted in writing an offer of K 20 million as final settlement from the State party. The Committee notes the author’s claim that she was compelled to accept such amount due to her dire situation but that it is not commensurate to the loss and damage caused both in terms of the torture inflicted to Jack Chiti and the material damage caused as a consequence of their eviction from the flat that the family occupied. The Committee further notes the author’s claim that her husband filed a complaint with the Zambian Permanent Human Rights Commission and that the Legal Resources Foundation sued the State party on his behalf. As a result, the court ruled that Mr. Chiti, the author and their children be awarded compensation for the illegal evictions from their home and loss and damage of personal effects as well as compensation to Mr. Jack Chiti for the torture suffered. This compensation as ordered by the Court has not been paid by the State party. The Committee notes that the State party does not deny that the payment has not been made. 11.5 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that authors must avail themselves of all judicial remedies in order to fulfil the requirement of exhaustion of all available domestic remedies, insofar as such remedies appear to be effective in the given case and are de facto available to the authors.9 The Committee also recalls that the State party has a duty not only to carry out thorough investigations of alleged violations of human rights, particularly violations of the prohibition of torture, but also to prosecute, try and punish anyone held to be responsible for such violations.10 In the present case, the information before the Committee indicates that, almost 16 years after the incriminated facts, the State party has still not launched any investigation into the allegations of torture and eviction and has limited itself to propose to the author a sum of money in the context of a friendly settlement. Moreover, with regard to the claims other than those related to torture, the State party has not provided information to the Committee on the judicial remedies de facto available to the author. Thus, the Committee considers that the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol and that it is not precluded from examining the communication on this ground. 11.6 Although the author does not elaborate and provide arguments in support of each of the articles invoked, the facts as she presented them seem to raise issues in relation to articles 2, paragraph 3; 7; 10; and 14, paragraph 3 (g), in relation to Jack Chiti who was arrested, allegedly tortured by state agents and forced to sign a confession. With regard to the author’s allegation that following his arrest, her husband was held in solitary 9 10 Communication No. 1003/2001, P.L. v. Germany, decision on admissibility adopted on 22 October 2003, para. 6.5. See also communication No. 433/1990, A.P.A. v. Spain, decision on admissibility adopted on 25 March 1994, para. 6.2. Communication No. 1755/2008, El Hagog Jumaa v. Libya, Views adopted on 19 March 2012, para. 8.5 7