CAT/C/65/D/778/2016 such disclosure does not cause further harm or threaten the safety and interests of the complainants.9 Similarly, the Committee recalls that: a State’s failure to investigate, criminally prosecute, or to allow civil proceedings related to allegations of acts of torture in a prompt manner, may constitute a de facto denial of redress and thus constitute a violation of the State’s obligations under article 14.10 Furthermore, “to give effect to article 14, States parties shall enact legislation specifically providing a victim of torture and ill-treatment with an effective remedy and the right to obtain adequate and appropriate redress”.11 Likewise: undue delays in initiating or concluding legal investigations into complaints of torture or ill-treatment compromise victims’ rights under article 14 to obtain redress, including fair and adequate compensation and the means for as full rehabilitation as possible.12 The Committee further recalls: the importance of the State party affirmatively ensuring that victims and their families are adequately informed of their right to pursue redress. In this regard, the procedures for seeking reparation should be transparent. The State party should moreover provide assistance and support to minimize the hardship to complainants and their representatives.13 Lastly, the Committee recalls that: States parties shall ensure that access to justice and to mechanisms for seeking and obtaining redress are readily available and that positive measures ensure that redress is equally accessible to all persons regardless of ... economic ... status ... or any other status or adverse distinction.14 Therefore, in accordance with the above, the right to the truth entails the right to a prompt, effective and impartial investigation. 7.10 With regard to the complainants’ allegations that they were unable to play an active part in the investigation of their brother’s death, including his enforced disappearance and the alleged acts of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, because they were refused legal standing as private criminal plaintiffs, the Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 14 of the Convention, the concept of “victim” includes persons who have individually or collectively suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that constitute violations of the Convention. 15 This concept of victim also encompasses the immediate family, such as Mr. Yrusta’s sisters, the authors of the present complaint. The Committee notes that the State party has not advanced any arguments that would lead to the conclusion that Mr. Yrusta’s sisters do not fall into that category. Moreover, the Committee considers that the anguish and suffering experienced by the complainants owing to the lack of information that would allow clarification of what happened to their brother have been exacerbated by the de facto failure to acknowledge their status as victims, which thus becomes a cause of revictimization that is incompatible with the principles enshrined in the Convention. 16 The Committee considers that, in the present case, the mere fact that it took more than five years for the complainants to be allowed to act as plaintiffs in the investigative proceedings entails, in and of itself, a violation of articles 12, 13 and 14 (1) of the Convention. After such a long period has passed, the possibility of playing an active and effective part in the proceedings is lessened 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 12 General comment No. 3, para. 16. Ibid., para. 17. Ibid., para. 20. Ibid., para. 25. Ibid., para. 29. Ibid., para. 32. Ibid., para. 3. Committee on Enforced Disappearances, Yrusta v. Argentina (CED/C/10/D/1/2013), para. 10.8. GE.19-01524