CAT/C/56/D/578/2013 information or evidence that might allow the Committee to ascertain what progres s has been made or to judge how effective the proceedings might be, bearing in mind that the case has remained on the court’s docket for nearly three years. The Committee finds that, under the circumstances, the inaction of the competent authorities has ma de it unlikely that any remedy that might provide effective relief 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 complaint under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 6.3 In the absence of any impediment to admissibility, the Committee proceeds to its consideration of the merits of the claims submitted by the complainant under articles 1, 2 (1), 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16 of the Convention. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered 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. 7.2 The Committee notes that, according to the complainant, on 15 May 2012 he was violently assaulted by uniformed police officers armed with rifles and was then arrested and taken to the police station located next to the SOGEMAC building without being informed of the reasons for his arrest. Upon his arrival at the police station, he was kicked and beaten with belts so violently for more than two hours that he lost consciousness. The complainant was left lying on the floor without assistance, despite his serious injuries, and was only taken to hospital, two hours after the incident, thanks to the intervention of a friend. The Committee observes that the treatment inflicted on the complainant was intentional, since it occurred while he was in the hands of agents of the State party, and was of such a severity that the victim lost consciousness and that his injuries have had lasting consequences which affect him to this day. Furthermore, the abuse to which he was subjected was in all likelihood intended to punish him for an act that he was thought to have committed. 7.3 The Committee has noted the State party’s argument that the actions of the police officers were unplanned, that the officers were not acting on orders and that therefore the acts in question cannot be classified as torture. In this regard, the Committee observes that, according to information provided by the complainant that has not been contested by the State party, the individuals who beat and interrogated him were uniformed police officers armed with rifles and belts. Furthermore, the complainant was severely beaten for two hours by police officers within the police station itself. Based on the information provided to it, the Committee concludes that the abuse inflicted upon the complainant was committed by agents of the State part y acting in an official capacity and that the acts constitute acts of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. 7.4 Having found a violation of article 1 of the Convention, the Committee will not consider the grievances raised by the complainant, on a subsidiary basis, under article 16 of the Convention. 7.5 The complainant also invokes article 2 (1) of the Convention, under which the State party is required to take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. The Committee observes that the complainant in this case was severely beaten and then detained without being allowed immediate contact with his family or access to legal or medical assistance. Even though the authorities have been provided with ample information about the acts committed against the victim, an investigation was promptly launched the day after the events, that is, on 16 May 2012, and the case file was submitted to the Rohero local court on 13 December 2012, the acts in question 10/12 GE.16-01380