CAT/C/39/D/269/2005 page 8 conducting the inquiry. Even if the complainant had not shown due diligence, the State party would be under the same obligation. The Committee had stated that a lack of action on the part of the victim could not excuse failings by the State party in the investigation of accusations of torture.9 5.2 The complainant considers that his complaint was unproductive since he had never been informed of any follow-up to it. He notes that none of the records, letters and other communications concerning the investigation which the State party mentions have been produced by the State party in its response to his communication; and in any event, they cannot be considered to amount to a full, impartial investigation as required by article 12 of the Convention. As for the fact that he did not receive the summons issued in June 2003 because he was not at home, he argues that absence from his home on one occasion is not a valid reason to exclude him entirely from the proceedings. As for medical certificates, even if the Public Prosecutor in September 2000 did issue a request - which was never received - asking him to present such documents, no further attempt to obtain them was made thereafter. He notes that the chief of the security service for the Tunis district reached the provisional conclusion in his message of 17 April 2001, seven months after the inquiry supposedly started, that the facts as related had not been established, and did so without hearing any witnesses, the complainant or the defendants, or seeing any medical certificates. Of the three defendants, the first was questioned more than a year after the incident and the last, more than two years after it although the criminal investigation service could easily get in touch with them all. The complainant further notes that the State party reports, without giving further details, that the three defendants denied the facts, and that there is no indication that their statements were subsequently checked. He considers that the authorities have not conducted a prompt, serious, exhaustive and impartial investigation. 5.3 The complainant considers that the other domestic remedies mentioned by the State party are equally ineffective, and that he therefore does not need to pursue them to satisfy article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention. With regard to seeking remedy through criminal proceedings, he mentions that he has run up against several obstacles as already described, including the absence of a decision by the Public Prosecutor not to bring a prosecution. Furthermore, if an investigation begun by institution of a civil suit results in a dismissal of proceedings, the complainant may be held civilly and criminally liable, and this deters action. Regarding a possible civil remedy, he points out that under article 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, civil suits are dependent and contingent upon the criminal proceedings; yet in practice, criminal proceedings are not an available option. As regards an administrative appeal, he says that a favourable outcome is no more likely in the administrative tribunal than it would be in the criminal courts, and the outcome of his attempt to bring criminal charges is a good indicator of how administrative litigation would probably end. Furthermore, he considers that by their very nature, neither civil nor administrative proceedings can guarantee full and appropriate reparation in a case of torture: only a criminal remedy for such a violation of the fundamental rights of the person is appropriate. 9 See communication No. 59/1996, Blanco Abad v. Spain, decision adopted on 14 May 1998, para. 8.7.