CAT/C/35/D/174/2000 Page 9 3.2 They submit that other inconsistencies further supported their suspicion, inter alia: (a) the fact that N. N. was explicitly told that he would not be subjected to physical force, if he opened the door of apartment no. 82; (b) that the search warrant issued on 19 April 1994 only authorized the police to enter the apartment to “search for goods related to criminal offences”, rather than to arrest N. N., and that it stated 11 a.m. as the time of the entry, although the police report stated 9.40 a.m. as the time of death; and (c) that it was unreasonable to expect that anyone would risk his life by trying to climb from the tenth to the ninth floor of a high- rise, only secured by some electric cables, break the window and enter the apartment on the ninth floor, only in order to find himself in the same situation as before, assuming that the police had plenty of time to reach the (presumably locked) door of the apartment on the ninth floor before this could be opened from inside. 3.3 The complainants claim that the dismissal of all their motions to initiate criminal proceedings, and of their subsequent appeals, raises doubts about the impartiality of the Serbian authorities’ investigation into N. N.’s death and alleged prior torture, thus disclosing a violation of article 13 of the Convention. Thus, the investigating judge had never initiated an investigation or even heard the complainants; none of the witnesses named by the complainants’ lawyer was ever heard or cross-examined. 3.4 The complainants submit an amicus curiae by Human Rights Watch/Helsinki dated 24 November 1997, which states that the “[i]nconsistencies in the various police and medical reports could only be adequately addressed in a court of law.” 3.5 For the complainants, the State party’s failure to investigate the circumstances of their son’s death de facto prevents them from exercising their right to a fair and adequate compensation, guaranteed in article 14 of the Convention, as the legal successors of their son and as indirect victims of the acts of torture that he had presumably been subjected to. They refer to a similar case, in which the European Court of Human Rights found that the disappearance of the applicant’s son amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of article 3 of the European Convention, and awarded 15.000 £ compensation for the disappeared son’s pain and suffering and an additional 20.000 £ for the applicants’ own anguish and distress. 6 3.6 The complainants submit that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, and that they have exhausted all available domestic remedies. Committee’s request for State party’s observations: 4.1 By notes verbales of 2 November 2000, 19 April 2002 and 12 December 2002, the Committee requested the State party to submit its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. On 14 January 2003, the State party informed the Committee that it “accepts the individual complaint No. 174/2000”. 6 See European Court of Human Rights, Kurt v. Turkey, Judgment of 25 May 1998.