CAT/C/41/D/291/2006 page 7 Criminal Procedure, which stipulate that the State prosecutor represents the public prosecutor’s office at the court of first instance and is responsible for “recording all offences and receiving all reports sent to it by public officials or private individuals, as well as complaints from injured parties” (art. 26). The refusal to register a complaint is the consequence and proof of the arbitrary exercise of the functions of the prosecutor. As this practice is common and widespread with regard to the victims of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment at the hands of the police and other security forces in the State party, the remedies provided for by law cannot be considered effective and available. 3.3 According to the complainant, in addition to the usual criminal prosecution by the authorities, the victim of a crime can initiate criminal proceedings by becoming a party to the prosecution. However, the legal system governing this procedure renders it a sham. Article 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits the injured party to start criminal proceedings by initiating the prosecution if the prosecutor has dropped the case. However, if the prosecutor takes no decision either to drop or pursue the case, the victim cannot initiate proceedings of his or her own accord. The Committee has considered that such a failure to act on the part of the prosecutor poses an insurmountable obstacle to the use of this legal procedure, as it makes it highly unlikely that the criminal proceedings initiated by the civil party will bring relief to the victim.8 In the present case, in which registration of the complaint was refused, it was impossible for the prosecutor to take a decision. Consequently, according to the complainant, it must be concluded that the rejection of the complaint constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to the initiation by the complainant of criminal proceedings. 3.4 The complainant explains that, under article 45 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, any person who becomes a civil party to the prosecution is liable under civil and criminal law towards the accused if the case is dropped. As the criteria for terminating proceedings are not clearly defined, and any decision to do so is subject to external pressures, this provision exposes the complainant to serious risks of punishment. The complainant notes that the Committee has already expressed concern that this provision may in itself constitute a violation of article 13 of the Convention, as the conditions for filing a complaint could be seen as “intimidating a potential complainant”.9 In the light of the risks posed by this procedure, it cannot be considered either effective or accessible. 3.5 According to the complainant, the civil action referred to in article 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is entirely dependent on the criminal proceedings, in that it must be associated with criminal proceedings or must be brought after a conviction has been handed down by the criminal courts. In the present case, the complaint by the complainant was rejected. The criminal proceedings were not instigated because the complaint was rejected by the office of the prosecutor, who neither dropped the case nor opened an investigation into it, rendering access to a civil remedy impossible. 8 Communication No. 207/2002, Dragan Dimitrijevic v. Serbia and Montenegro, Views adopted on 24 November 2004, para. 5.4. 9 Summary record of the first part (public) of the 358th meeting of the Committee against Torture, held on 18 November 1998 (CAT/C/SR.358, para. 29).