CAT/C/68/D/852/2017 1974 and 1977, the contested investigation of those acts by the State party is within the Committee’s competence ratione temporis. 8.4 Secondly, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the complainant’s claims related to decisions by Australian institutions are inadmissible as the alleged acts of agents took place outside the State party’s jurisdiction (para. 4.11 above). The Committee considers that it is precluded, ratione loci, from examining the complainant’s allegations in respect of acts committed outside the State party’s jurisdiction. 8.5 Thirdly, the Committee notes the State party’s arguments relating to the lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies by the complainant. According to the State party, on the one hand the complainant has not contested before the courts the decision of the Medical Council not to investigate Dr. Leeks and on the other hand, he will have the opportunity to participate in the newly established Royal Commission of Inquiry into historical abuse in State care. The Committee notes that, although the complainant has not disputed the possibility of contesting the decision of the Medical Council before the courts, the Committee considers that the procedure before the Medical Council, which the State party itself admits is an independent regulatory body, cannot replace a criminal investigation into the facts alleged by the complainant. The Committee also notes the State party’s acknowledgment that the Royal Commission of Inquiry has no power to establish criminal liability. The Committee therefore considers that no additional effective remedies were available to the complainant for his claims under articles 12 and 13 of the Convention. 8.6 Fourthly, the State party invokes rule 113 (f) of the rules of procedure of the Committee to claim that the time elapsed since the purported exhaustion of domestic remedies is unreasonably prolonged, so as to render consideration of the claims and relief sought by the complainant unduly difficult for the State party. However, the Committee notes the complainant’s uncontested assertion that he received the police notification in 2010 and that he requested the police file in 2015, at which point he became aware of the possibility of a criminal charge for the treatment he had received at Lake Alice. The Committee points out that neither the Convention nor the Committee’s rules of procedure establish a time limit for submitting a complaint. While the complainant does not explain why it took him five years to request the police report of the investigation, the Committee notes that he introduced his communication in 2017, that is, two years after becoming aware of the details of the police investigation. Consequently, the Committee finds that there are no obstacles to admissibility under rule 113 (f) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. 8.7 The Committee notes that the complainant does not provide any arguments to explain how his rights under articles 2, 10 and 11 of the Convention have been violated. The Committee therefore considers this part of the complaint to be ill-founded and declares it inadmissible pursuant to article 22 (2) of the Convention. 8.8 However, the Committee notes the complainant’s claim that the State party has not ensured accountability for the treatment that he suffered while at Lake Alice Hospital, which is contrary to articles 12 and 13 of the Convention. The Committee considers that the complainant has sufficiently substantiated this claim for the purposes of admissibility. As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares this part of the communication containing claims under articles 12 and 13 of the Convention admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Furthermore, the Committee considers that the complainant’s claims are admissible insofar as they raise issues under article 14, considered in the present case in relation to articles 12 and 13 on the procedural aspects of the right to justice and to the truth.32 Consideration of the merits 9.1 In accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties. 32 See Committee against Torture, general comment No. 3 (2012) on the implementation of article 14, paras. 16 and 17. 13