CAT/C/68/D/852/2017 4.18 Even if articles 12 and 13 are relevant for the pre-ratification period, there was comprehensive compliance with these articles. Investigations in the 1970s of allegations concerning the Lake Alice Psychiatric Hospital were timely and conducted in a prompt and impartial manner in accordance with articles 12 and 13. As regards the post-ratification period, it is without contest that the complainant has exercised his right to complain to the police. The State party interprets the complainant to be alleging in the main that article 12 has been breached because the police did not prosecute Dr. Leeks; the Government has not held a ministerial inquiry into the events at Lake Alice; and the Medical Council decision not to investigate Dr. Leeks, because he was no longer a member of the New Zealand medical profession, was inadequate. 4.19 Numerous investigations have been undertaken by the police, starting in the 1970s and more recently in the 2000s. Those investigations have sought to determine both the nature and circumstances of alleged criminal offending at Lake Alice Psychiatric Hospital and to establish the identity of any person who may have been involved. 24 The central question which arises in the present communication is whether the decision of the police not to prosecute Dr. Leeks was a breach of either articles 12 or 13. The State party submits it was not. 4.20 Article 12 does not oblige States parties to prosecute an individual accused of torture in circumstances where there is insufficient evidence for a prosecution to succeed. The article 12 obligation imposes a duty on a State party to investigate torture when it has reasonable grounds to do so. The police investigated and decided not to prosecute Dr. Leeks because of lack of sufficient evidence and a determination that the public interest did not merit prosecution. That decision was taken and reviewed by senior members of the police. The decision is not inconsistent with either article 12 or 13, as has been recognized by leading commentators.25 The International Court of Justice has also considered that the obligation to submit a case to the competent authorities under article 7 (1) of the Convention may or may not result in instituting proceedings, in the light of the evidence before them.26 Moreover, given the length of time which has elapsed since the acts which constitute alleged torture and the resulting unavailability of witnesses, there is a real prospect that Dr. Leeks’ right to a fair trial and the rights of any former staff members would be infringed if there was to be a criminal prosecution now. 4.21 As to the State party’s decision not to hold a ministerial inquiry, the Convention does not include the obligation to hold an inquiry of that nature, it only requires a competent State authority to investigate the alleged torture. In any event, government inquiries cannot determine the civil, criminal or disciplinary liability of any person, but are directed at establishing the facts that occurred in relation to a certain event, with a view to informing policy development in the future. The State party recalls that it has in fact decided to hold a Royal Commission of Inquiry into historical abuse in State care and that the events underpinning the complainant’s claim may well be considered by the Commission. 4.22 As to the complainant’s allegation that the Medical Council should have investigated Dr. Leeks, the State party refers to its arguments on admissibility that, on the one hand, the Council is a body independent from Government, hence its decision cannot be attributed to the Government and, on the other hand, aggrieved claimants, including the complainant, retained the right at the time to seek review of that decision in the higher court, but they chose not to exercise that right. 4.23 Finally, the State party refers to the steps it has taken to change medical practice so that the events at Lake Alice Psychiatric Hospital are very unlikely to occur again. 24 25 26 8 That is the standard the Committee has required in order for an investigation to be considered effective, see Kirsanov v. Russian Federation (CAT/C/52/D/478/2011), para. 11.3. See Manfred Nowak and Elizabeth McArthur, The United Nations Convention against Torture: a Commentary (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 361–362 and 415. See also Chris Ingelse, The UN Committee against Torture (South Holland, Kluwer Law International, 2001), p. 329. Questions relating to the obligation to prosecute or extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012, p. 422.