CAT/C/62/D/493/2012 evidence from the State party that it did supervise the complainant’s detention, the Committee finds that the State party has violated article 11 of the Convention. 18 8.5 As for articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the Committee has taken note of the complainant’s claims that he was detained without legal grounds from 2 to 9 August 2006, when he was brought before the public prosecutor and formally charged with involvement in an attempted coup d’état. Notwithstanding the fact that he filed a complaint on 22 September 2006 with the Attorney General’s Office, that the complaint was supported by a medical report requested by the investigating judge and indicating that he had probably been subjected to torture, and that the facts were widely known and reported by various people, including a minister of the Government of the State party, no investigation has been carried out, more than 11 years after the events. The Committee considers that so long a delay in initiating an investigation into allegations of torture is patently unjustified. It also rejects the State party’s argument that the lack of progress in the investigation can be put down to a lack of cooperation on the part of the complainant or his lawyer. The Committee draws attention to the State party’s obligation under article 12 of the Convention to ensure that its competent authorities proceed ex officio to a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed. 19 In the present case, the Committee finds a violation of article 12 of the Convention. 8.6 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 a satisfactory response by launching a prompt and impartial investigation. 20 The Committee therefore also finds a violation of article 13 of the Convention. 8.7 Regarding the complainant’s claims under article 14 of the Convention, the Committee recalls that this article 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 recalls that redress should cover all the harm suffered by the victim and should encompass, among other measures, restitution, compensation and guarantees of non-repetition of the violations, taking into account the circumstances of the individual case.21 In the present case, in the absence of a prompt and impartial investigation, despite clear material evidence that the complainant was the victim of acts of torture which have gone unpunished, the Committee concludes that the State party has also failed to fulfil its obligations under article 14 of the Convention. 8.8 Regarding the complaint under article 16, the Committee has taken note of the complainant’s allegations that he was detained from 2 to 9 August 2006 on the premises of the National Intelligence Service in a cramped room shared with 12 other detainees in appalling sanitary conditions and denied access to a doctor, despite asking for one and despite his worrying state of health. He further claims that on 9 August 2006 he was transferred to Mpimba prison, which is characterized by overcrowding and insanitary conditions that amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. In the absence of any relevant information from the State party in this regard, the Committee concludes that the facts in the present case disclose a violation by the State party of its obligations under article 16 of the Convention.22 9. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 1, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (1), and articles 11 to 14 and 16 of the Convention. 10. Pursuant to rule 118 (5) of its rules of procedure, the Committee urges the State party to launch an impartial investigation into the events in question, with a view to bringing those allegedly responsible for the victim’s treatment to justice, and to inform it, 18 19 20 21 22 10 See E.N. v. Burundi (CAT/C/56/D/578/2013), para. 7.6. See, inter alia, Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.4. See also Kabura v. Burundi (CAT/C/59/D/549/2013), para. 7.4. Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.5. Ibid., para. 8.6. See also Ntikarahera v. Burundi (CAT/C/52/D/503/2012), para. 6.5. See, inter alia, Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.8; and Ntikarahera v. Burundi, para. 6.6. GE.18-00819