CAT/C/48/D/453/2011 have been met, the Committee finds the communication admissible and proceeds to consideration of its merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties concerned, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 7.2 The complainant claims to have been the victim of a violation of article 12 of the Convention because the allegations he made to the courts of having been subjected to torture and ill-treatment while being held incommunicado did not lead to a prompt, independent and impartial investigation. The State party indicates that the courts carried out the necessary inquiries and examined the medical reports from his time in detention, but did not find sufficient evidence that torture had taken place. The Committee notes that the complainant lodged a complaint of torture and ill-treatment, which was examined by the Second Examining Magistrate’s Court of Vitoria-Gasteiz. On the basis of forensic medical reports, which did not support the complainant’s allegations, the Court ordered a stay of proceedings. The Provincial High Court of Álava subsequently dismissed the complainant’s appeal, also on the basis of the forensic medical reports. The Committee also notes that the complainant requested that further evidence be taken, but that his request was turned down by the courts, which considered this unnecessary. The Committee further notes that, during committal proceedings against the complainant by the Fourth Examining Magistrate’s Court of the National High Court and the subsequent trial in that court, the complainant stated that he had incriminated himself as a result of the torture and ill-treatment to which he had been subjected. Neither the information contained in the file before the Committee nor the State party’s observations indicate that the courts took measures to investigate the complainant’s allegations. The National High Court, in particular, merely examined the evidence before it, including the self-incriminating statement, in order to establish the complainant’s responsibility. The Supreme Court also failed to act on the claim of torture made by the complainant as part of his application for cassation. 7.3 The Committee considers that the points outlined in the previous paragraph indicate a failure to investigate on the part of the authorities mentioned therein that is incompatible with the obligation on the State, under article 12 of the Convention, to ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed. The Committee can find nothing in the file before it to justify the failure of the courts to take other evidence aside from the forensic medical reports. The Committee considers that such additional evidence was relevant, given that, although forensic medical reports are generally important for determining whether acts of torture have taken place, they are often insufficient and need to be compared with other sources of information.9 The Committee therefore concludes that the facts before it reveal a violation by the State party of article 12 of the Convention. 7.4 The complainant claims to be the victim of a violation of article 15 of the Convention, in that self-incriminating statements made by him under torture in the police station were used as evidence leading to his conviction. The Committee notes that, under that provision, the State party must ensure that any statement which is established to have 9 12 See communication No. 59/1996, Blanco Abad v. Spain, decision of 14 May 1998, para. 8.8. See also general comment No. 32 (2007) of the Human Rights Committee, on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial (art. 14 of the Covenant) (Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-second Session, Supplement No. 40, vol. I [A/62/40 (vol. I)], annex VI), para. 41. GE.12-43762