CAT/C/48/D/453/2011 retracted in court can be considered as sufficiently conclusive evidence to convict a defendant. 4.7 With regard to the alleged violations of article 12, read in conjunction with article 15, of the Convention, the domestic courts carried out the necessary investigations and examined the medical reports from the defendant’s time in custody. However, they did not find sufficient evidence that the alleged crime had been committed. When it tried the complainant, the National High Court again looked at the circumstances in which he had been questioned. The complainant’s lawyer, chosen by him, was present during questioning but submitted no evidence to support the complainant’s allegations. It was noteworthy that the complainant filed his claim of having been tortured three months after his arrest and that he did not have recourse to any international body until after his conviction for the offence of terrorism. 4.8 The complainant does not explain how article 14 of the Convention has been violated. He has never demanded redress or compensation from the authorities of the State party, despite the fact that, under the law, the shelving of criminal proceedings does not preclude civil or administrative actions to claim compensation. Moreover, it is within the Committee’s powers to award compensation to the complainant, even if it were to find a violation of the Convention. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 29 November 2011, the complainant submitted comments on the State party’s observations. 5.2 The violations of articles 12 and 15 of the Convention should be taken as a whole. The failure to investigate the torture claim is neither a mere matter of procedure nor incidental. Articles 12 and 15 were infringed in succession. 5.3 As far as violations of article 12 of the Convention are concerned, he contends that he exhausted all the legal options available in the State party to have his claims investigated and to have those responsible for acts of torture punished. That the State party should conclude that sufficient evidence that acts of torture had been committed was lacking can be explained only by the failure of the courts to investigate his claims. It was only at the complainant’s request that the Second Examining Magistrate’s Court of Vitoria-Gasteiz admitted forensic reports as evidence. However, the Court turned down his plea to allow him to testify and to identify the police officers involved in the matter and to have them testify, and subsequently closed the case. The presence of legal counsel assigned by the State party while he made his statement to the police was a mere formality. He was unable to choose a lawyer he trusted at the time of his arrest because antiterrorism laws did not allow it. The Provincial High Court of Álava stated that the complainant’s torture claims needed to be corroborated by supporting evidence. However, at no time did it suggest that the Second Examining Magistrate’s Court of Vitoria-Gasteiz gather such evidence or look into evidence that might bear out the complainant’s claims.8 5.4 With regard to the alleged violations of article 15 of the Convention, it is true that the judges who expressed dissenting opinions in respect of the Supreme Court decision do 8 10 The Provincial High Court of Álava indicated that the victim’s statements could be considered as evidence for the prosecution, but that his claims needed to be backed up by supporting evidence, which in the case in question not only was lacking, but had been ruled out in the forensic medical reports. As a result, it was unnecessary to request that the Ertzaintza identify the persons involved in the questioning of the complainant, especially given the potential threat to the safety of those officers, whose well-being the courts also had a duty to safeguard. GE.12-43762