CAT/C/48/D/433/2010 proceedings are required by domestic legislation to take place before civil compensation can be sought, then the absence or undue delay of those criminal proceedings constitute a failure on behalf of the State party to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. The Committee emphasizes that disciplinary or administrative remedies without access to effective judicial review cannot be deemed to constitute adequate redress in the context of article 14. On the basis of the information before it, the Committee concludes that the State party is also in breach of its obligations under article 14 of the Convention.29 12.9 The Committee reaffirms that, within the framework of the procedure for individual communications set out in article 22, the State party is required to cooperate with the Committee in good faith, to refrain from taking any action that might hinder this process 30 and to abstain from any acts of intimidation or reprisal against complainants, their families and/or authorized representatives, made in connection with a complaint before the Committee. Such acts may include, but are not limited to, any forms of direct or indirect threats, coercion and other improper acts aimed at dissuading or discouraging complainants or potential complainants from submitting their complaints or at pressuring them to withdraw or modify their claims. Any such interference would render the individuals’ right of petition under article 22 meaningless. 12.10 The Committee notes that, before signing the withdrawal letter dated 18 February 2011, the complainant signed several other letters by which he refused the assistance of his lawyer, retracted his previous statements and refused to testify further. Thereafter, the only claims against the police remained the ones before the Committee. The Committee observes that the notarized withdrawal letter was sent to the Committee with a copy to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with a translation from Russian into English. The Committee takes note of the pressure to which the complainant and his family were subjected at national level, taking also into account the arguments advanced by the complainant’s representatives about the circumstances in which the notarized letter was produced and, with reference to its finding that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 13 of the Convention, concludes that the State party’s interference with the complainant’s right of petition amounts also to a violation of article 22 of the Convention. 13. The Committee, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention, is of the view that the facts before it disclose violations of article 1 in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 1, and of articles 12, 13, 14 and 22, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 14. The Committee urges the State party to conduct a proper, impartial and effective investigation in order to bring to justice those responsible for the complainant’s treatment, to take effective measures to ensure that the complainant and his family are protected from any forms of threats and intimidation, to provide the complainant with full and adequate reparation for the suffering inflicted, including compensation and rehabilitation, and to prevent similar violations in the future. Pursuant to rule 118, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the State party should inform the Committee, within 90 days from the date of the transmittal of this decision, of the action it has taken in response to the present decision. [Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Russian and Chinese as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] 29 30 18 See e.g. communication No. 207/2002, Dimitrijevic v. Serbia and Montenegro, decision adopted on 24 November 2004, para. 5.5. See communication No. 341/2008, Hanafi v. Algeria, decision adopted on 3 June 2011, para. 9.8.