CAT/C/54/D/456/2011 whereabouts and, if he is deceased, his remains have not been located and returned to his family. It has also not been determined whether the prison authorities a nd the Bolivarian National Guard bear any responsibility in the matter. In particular, no steps were taken to clarify whether Mr. Guerrero Larez’s disappearance was intended as a punishment or form of intimidation because he knew about alleged illegal acti vities conducted by a group of inmates in complicity with certain authorities, as argued by Mr. Guerrero Sánchez before the Fundamental Rights Department of the Public Prosecution Service. In the absence of any refutation by the State party, the Committee concludes that Mr. Guerrero Larez was removed from the protection of the law on 7 September 2009 and that, in the specific circumstances of this case, his enforced disappearance constitutes an act of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. 6.7 The Committee notes the complainants’ allegations under articles 2 and 11 of the Convention that, despite the grave situation of prison violence, the State party has not acted diligently or taken effective legislative, administrative, judicial or o ther measures to prevent the practice of torture in prisons and, in particular, to protect Mr. Guerrero Larez from becoming a victim of disappearance and, by extension, from being subjected to acts of torture committed by other inmates in the Penitentiary, with the acquiescence of the prison authorities. In this regard, the Committee notes the 2009 report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 10 and recalls its concluding observations on the State party’s second periodic report, in which it called on the State party to adopt measures to prevent both prisoner -on-prisoner violence and violence against prisoners by prison personnel, as well as to reinforce independent procedures of inspection in prisons. 11 In the absence of any observations from the State party on mechanisms to monitor the Penitentiary and on other measures to prevent prisoner-on-prisoner violence and the torture of prisoners by or with the acquiescence of the authorities, the Committee finds that the State party is responsible for a violation of articles 2 and 11 of the Convention. 6.8 With regard to article 12 of the Convention, the Committee recalls that States parties have an ex officio obligation to conduct a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there are reasonable grounds to believe that an act of torture has been committed. 12 In the present case, the Committee observes that the complainants were informed that Prosecutor ’s Office No. 3 was in charge of investigating the possible enforced disappearance of Mr. Guerrero Larez and that, on 25 February 2010, an inspection of the Penitentiary was conducted in the presence of the Public Prosecution Service and a commission of the Bolivarian National Guard. The Committee can find no other evidence of investigative activity on the part of the authorities in the file before it, despite the fact that there were reasonable grounds to believe that an act of torture had been committed. In spite of the complainants’ efforts, almost six years after Mr. Guerrero Larez’s disappearance in the Penitentiary, the State party has not conducted any prompt, impartial and effective investigations into the allegations of torture arising from his enforced disappearance in the Penitentiary and those responsible have not been brought to justice (see para. 6.6 above). In the light of the information contained in the file and in the absence of any observations by the State party in this respect, the Committee finds that the State party breached its obligations under article 12 of the Convention. 6.9 The Committee notes the complainants’ allegations to the effect that no redress has been provided for the harm caused to Mr. Guerrero Larez within the meaning of __________________ 10 11 12 10/11 Democracy and Human Rights in Venezuela (footnote 2 above). See CAT/C/CR/29/2, para. 11 (e). See also CAT/C/VEN/CO/3-4, para. 10 (a) and para. 19, and general comment No. 2 (2008) of the Committee, paras. 13, 17 and 18. Communication No. 269/2005, Ali Ben Salem v. Tunisia, decision adopted on 7 November 2007, para. 16.7. GE.15-10585