CAT/C/56/D/578/2013 unreasonably prolonged, given that an effective investigation into the incident that occurred in May 2012 has still not been carried out. As for the assertion that the complainant is responsible for the delays because of his lawyer’s discussions with the judge, the complainant contends that his lawyer’s actions fell within the normal exercise of the prerogatives of an attorney who is seeking to ensure the proper administration of justice in the face of the shortcomings found to exist in the investigation and proceedings. The State party’s asser tion is also contradictory in that while, on the one hand, it criticizes the complainant for failing to have recourse to domestic remedies, it also, on the other hand, criticizes him for having delayed the proceedings precisely by attempting to make use of those remedies. 5.6 With regard to the State party’s additional argument that the complainant was intending to sue for damages through a criminal indemnity action in the Rohero court but ultimately desisted, the complainant maintains that the initiation o f proceedings is not dependent on whether or not the victim decides to sue for damages and that, for offences as serious as those involved in the present case, a criminal indemnity action could not in any way compensate for the failure to prosecute the cas e, which should have been done on an ex officio basis. 5.7 As regards the classification of the offence, the complainant notes that the State party has acknowledged that the acts in question have caused him acute pain and suffering. Furthermore, it has not denied that agents of the State party were involved. The complainant rejects the State party’s argument that the acts were not committed pursuant to instructions or with intention or premeditation. The end pursued, as the State party has acknowledged, was to punish a person thought to have stolen money from a bus passenger. Punishment is one of the unlawful grounds expressly specified in the definition of torture, and such punishment does not have to have been inflicted for purposes of obtaining information. There is no doubt that the complainant was under the physical control of agents of the State party; he was totally overpowered by the police officers and mounted no resistance. It cannot therefore be argued that the violence inflicted upon the victim was necessary for his arrest or had any legitimate purpose. Furthermore, whether or not the police officers had received an order from their superiors is irrelevant. Article 2 (2) of the Convention does not admit any exceptional circumstance that might be invoked as a justification for torture. 5.8 As to the substance of the complaint and the alleged violations of articles 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16, the complainant reiterates all the arguments set forth in the initial submission. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 As required under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, the Committee has ascertained 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, inasmuch as a formal criminal charge of assault was filed and registered with the Rohero local court as Case No. RMPG 604/NE on 13 December 2012. The Committee notes that the State party has indicated that proceedings are ongoing, but it has provided no further undertaken, was not in keeping with the State party’s obligations in the matter, particularly those set forth in article 12 of the Convention. He also recalls that , in the case of Blanco Abad v. Spain, the Committee concluded that taking 10 months to carry out investigative procedures “shows the investigative measures not to have satisfied the requirement for promptness in examining complaints”. GE.16-01380 9/12