CAT/C/41/D/291/2006 page 24 15.4 The Committee observes that the complainant has alleged a violation of article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention, on the grounds that the State party failed in its duty to prevent and punish acts of torture. These provisions are applicable insofar as the acts to which the complainant was subjected are considered acts of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. In this respect, the Committee takes 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 and to intimidating her. Although the State party disputes the facts as presented by the complainant, the Committee does not consider the State party’s arguments to be sufficiently substantiated. In the circumstances, the Committee concludes that the complainant’s allegations must be duly taken into account and that the facts, as presented, constitute torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. 15.5 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, as the treatment suffered by the complainant in breach of article 1 of the Convention exceeds the treatment encompassed in article 16. 15.6 Regarding articles 2 and 11, the Committee considers that the documents communicated to it furnish no proof that the State party has failed to discharge its obligations under these provisions of the Convention. 15.7 As to the allegations concerning the violation of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the Committee notes that the prosecutor never informed the complainant’s lawyer, or the complainant herself, whether an inquiry was under way or had been carried out following the filing of the complaint on 30 July 2004. The State party has, however, informed the Committee that the competent authorities took up the case as soon as they had been notified by the Committee of the complainant’s communication and that the Tunis prosecution service decided on 27 June 2006 to open a preliminary judicial investigation. The State party has also indicated that the investigation is still ongoing, more than four years after the alleged incidents, without giving any details. In addition, the Committee notes that the prosecutor rejected the complaint filed by the lawyer and that the complainant has thus effectively been prevented from initiating civil proceedings before a judge. The Committee considers that a delay of 23 months before an investigation is initiated into allegations of torture is excessive and does not meet the requirements of article 12 of the Convention,40 which requires the State party to proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation whenever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed. Nor has the State party fulfilled its obligation under article 13 of the Convention to ensure that the complainant has the right to complain to, and to have her case promptly and impartially investigated by, its competent authorities. 40 Communication No. 8/1991, Halimi-Nedzibi v. Austria, Views adopted on 18 November 1993, para. 13.5 [delay of 15 months].