CAT/C/62/D/496/2012 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 The Committee notes that the State party has contested the admissibility of the complaint on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, as proceedings were instituted by the public prosecutor at the Supreme Court. It also notes that, according to the State party, the first cross-examination was followed by others. The Committee, however, has not received any other information or evidence that would enable it to determine what progress has been made or the potential effectiveness of the proceedings. The Committee also notes that nine years have passed since 6 March 2008, when the complainant filed his criminal complaint. The Committee finds that, in the circumstances, the inaction of the competent authorities has made it unlikely that any remedy that might provide effective reparation can be initiated and that, in any event, the domestic proceedings have been unreasonably prolonged. Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded from considering the communication by article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 6.3 In the absence of any obstacle to the admissibility of the communication, the Committee proceeds to its consideration of the merits of the claims submitted by the complainant under articles 1, 2 (1), 12, 13, 14 and 16 of the Convention. Failure of the State party to cooperate 7. The State party was invited to submit its comments on the merits of the communication on 26 November 2015, 25 April 2016, 29 June 2016 and 24 November 2016. The Committee takes note of the State party’s explanation of its decision not to make any observations on the merits of the communication in its submission of 4 June 2015 but finds it regrettable that — despite repeated reminders — the State party has made no such observations. The Committee recalls that the State party is obliged, pursuant to the Convention, to submit to the Committee written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and indicating the measures, if any, that may have been taken to remedy the situation. In the absence of a response from the State party, due weight must be given to the complainant’s allegations, which have been properly substantiated. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has examined the complaint in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. As the State party has not provided any observations on the merits, due weight must be given to the complainant’s allegations. 8.2 The Committee notes the complainant’s allegation that he was severely beaten for half an hour by police officers, who struck him all over his body — on his right ankle in particular — with the butts of their rifles and their truncheons, that the police left him, covered in blood, in a critical condition and that he was then taken to the hospital by passers-by. According to a medical certificate dated 27 February 2008, which he attached to his submissions, the complainant did indeed sustain a severe contusion of the soft tissues of his right ankle. It also notes that the governor of Cibitoke Province acknowledged during a hearing at the prosecutor’s office that police officers had beaten the complainant. In a statement submitted to the Committee, moreover, the complainant’s cousin mentions in particular the violent blows with rifle butts to the complainant’s legs and feet. The Committee likewise takes note of the complainant’s allegations that the blows he received caused extreme pain and mental suffering and were deliberately inflicted by agents of the State with the objective of punishing and intimidating him. At no time were these allegations contested by the State party. In the circumstances, the Committee concludes that 8 GE.18-00818