CAT/C/62/D/496/2012 the complainant’s allegations must be taken fully into account and that the facts as presented constitute torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. 18 8.3 Having reached this conclusion, the Committee does not consider it necessary to examine the same claims from the perspective of article 16 of the Convention, put forward by the complainant in the alternative. 8.4 The complainant also invokes article 2 (1) of the Convention, under which the State party should have taken effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. The Committee observes that the complainant was beaten and then left in an alarming condition by the police officers. He was subjected to serious abuse committed by agents of the State, whom he reported on several occasions; no one has been punished for the abuse. Accordingly, the Committee finds that a violation of article 2 (1), read in conjunction with article 1 of the Convention, has been committed.19 8.5 In respect of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the Committee has taken note of the complainant’s allegations that, on 15 February 2008, he was beaten by police officers accompanying the governor of Cibitoke Province. Although he submitted a complaint to the public prosecutor at the Supreme Court on 6 March 2008, after which a hearing was held, and resubmitted his complaint on 3 February 2011, it has been more than nine years since the incident, and no investigation has been conducted. The Committee is of the view that taking so long to initiate an investigation into allegations of torture is patently unjustified. It also takes note of 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. In this regard, the Committee draws attention to the State party’s obligation under article 12 of the Convention to ensure that its competent authorities proceed automatically to a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed. 20 The Committee therefore 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. 21 The Committee therefore finds that a violation of article 13 of the Convention has also been committed. 8.7 The Committee recalls that article 14 of the Convention 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. Redress should cover all the harm suffered by the victim. It encompasses, among other measures, restitution, compensation and guarantees of nonrepetition, while taking into account the circumstances of each case. 22 In this case, the Committee has noted the complainant’s claim that he is experiencing the consequences — back trouble, for instance, and the loss of physical capacity — of the treatment he suffered. He has nonetheless not benefited from any treatment or rehabilitation measures. The Committee is of the view that the failure to conduct a prompt and impartial investigation has deprived the complainant of the possibility of availing himself of his right to redress and is thus a violation of article 14 of the Convention. 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 12, 13 and 14 of the Convention. 10. The Committee urges the State party to: (a) complete the investigation that was initiated into the incidents in question, with a view to bringing to justice all those responsible for the treatment inflicted on the complainant; (b) provide the complainant with 18 19 20 21 22 GE.18-00818 See, for example, Niyonzima v. Burundi (CAT/C/53/D/514/2012), para. 8.2, and Kabura v. Burundi (CAT/C/59/D/549/2013), para. 7.2. See, inter alia, E.N. v. Burundi (CAT/C/56/D/578/2013), para. 7.5. See, inter alia, Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.4. See also Kabura v. Burundi, 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. 9