CAT/C/68/D/852/2017 there is a strong likelihood the Commission will consider the claims of former patients of the Child and Adolescent Unit. However, the State party acknowledges that a Royal Commission aims to inform policy going forward and “has no power to determine the civil, criminal, or disciplinary liability of any person”. 20 This means that the inquiry will not necessarily undertake the sort of forensic inquiry that might have been expected in a criminal prosecution. Conversely, it also means that the Royal Commission does not give rise to the concerns about a fair trial that would accompany any decision to prosecute Dr. Leeks. 4.14 Finally, the time that has elapsed since the events and the complainant’s purported exhaustion of domestic remedies (a claim with which the State party does not agree) is unreasonably prolonged, so as to render consideration by the State party of the claims and relief sought by the complainant unduly difficult.21 On 15 March 2010, the complainant was informed by the police that it would not be prosecuting Dr. Leeks. The complainant lodged his complaint with the Committee on 30 October 2017 without explaining the delay.22 In conjunction with the fact that the events invoked occurred over 40 years ago, any consideration of the complainant’s claims by the Government, insofar as they relate to the criminal culpability of Dr. Leeks, is now unduly difficult. There would also be valid concerns for the maintenance of the right to a fair trial for all parties involved if a criminal prosecution were to be attempted now. 4.15 On the merits, the State party first submits that the documents communicated to the Committee furnish no proof that the Government has failed to discharge its obligations under article 10. The events occurred between 1972 and 1977 and the complainant has not raised any issues of insufficient education and information of personnel during the relevant post-ratification period. Article 10 is not therefore engaged. 4.16 The State party acknowledges that compliance with article 11 is a step it can take to ensure it complies with its article 2 obligations. Even if article 11 is relevant for the preratification period, with which it does not agree, the State party submits there was comprehensive compliance in the 1970s with the requirement to take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture (art. 2) or to review instructions, methods and practices and arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons who are detained (art. 11).23 Those early reviews by the relevant State agencies are significant because they occurred at the same time as or close in time to the operation of the Child and Adolescent Unit at Lake Alice; their examination of relevant issues was thorough, the Commission of Inquiry and the Ombudsman having the ability to call and receive evidence, and no prosecutorial outcomes followed the investigations. 4.17 In regard to the post-ratification period, the documents communicated to the Committee furnish no proof that the State party has failed to discharge its obligations under articles 2 and 11, either considering article 11 on its own, or in conjunction with article 2. In the 2000s, when further complaints emerged, the State party acted responsibly to consider the allegations and to compensate and apologize to former patients, including the complainant. Although the settlement process was not a government inquiry per se, the settlement examined individual cases and avoided the need for claimants to endure the stress and risk of a civil trial to establish their claims. There have also been substantial changes in medical practice since the operation of the Child and Adolescent Unit. Medical professionals operate now in a very different regulatory framework. As a result, the events at Lake Alice Psychiatric Hospital are very unlikely to occur again in the State party. 20 21 22 23 Inquiries Act 2013, section 11 (1). Rule 113 (f) of the rules of procedure of the Committee. The State party also refers to the former rules of procedure of the Human Rights Committee, which provided in rule 96 (c) that a communication might constitute an abuse of the right of submission when it is submitted five years after the exhaustion of domestic remedies. The State party refers to the several contemporaneous inquiries into the practices in the Child and Adolescent Unit while it was operating (the 1977 Commission of Inquiry report and the report issued by the Chief Ombudsman, along with two police investigations in 1977, none of which found any evidence of criminal misconduct). 7