CAT/C/48/D/433/2010 General Prosecutor’s Office’s concluding in its decision of 6 December 2010 that the allegations were substantiated and corroborated by medical evidence and witness testimonies, the investigation was terminated in February 2011 without any criminal charges being brought against the perpetrators or any remedy being provided to the complainant. 12.6 The Committee also notes the complainant’s allegations that during the investigation of his case in 2007 he and his family suffered threats, attempts at bribing him in order to withdraw his complaints, and that intimidation tactics – including a psychiatric evaluation against his will, pressure on his family to persuade him to drop his claims – were also part of the renewed investigation of 2010–2011. The State party did not provide any information in respect of these allegations other than a blanket denial of use of any pressure or intimidation against the complainant. The Committee notes that the complainant reported the intimidation acts to the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in June 2007 and that eventually no action was taken following such complaints. It also notes that such allegations are consistent with the findings of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on the existence of a pattern and practice of intimidation of those who make complaints of torture in Kazakhstan.27 In the light of the psychiatric evaluation conducted against the complainant’s will during the renewed investigation, the pressure exercised on his family in order to persuade him to drop his complaints and the incidents of intimidation that had taken place in 2007, the Committee considers that the letters of February 2011 – by which the complainant refused the services of his lawyer and thereafter refused to testify further, retracted his previous statements and declared that he had no claims against the police – cannot be regarded as a result of his free and voluntary consent, without any intimidation or coercion. 12.7 In the light of the above findings, and based on the materials before it, the Committee concludes that the State party has failed to comply with its obligation to carry out a prompt, impartial and effective investigation into the allegations of torture and to take steps to ensure that he and his family, as the main witnesses, were protected from intimidation as a consequence of their complaints and testimonies given during the investigation, in violation of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention. 12.8 With regard to the alleged violation of article 14 of the Convention, the Committee notes that it is uncontested that the absence of criminal proceedings deprived the complainant of the possibility of filing a civil suit for compensation since, according to domestic law, the right to compensation for torture arises only after conviction of the responsible officials by a criminal court. The Committee recalls in this respect that article 14 of the Convention recognizes not only the right to fair and adequate compensation, but also requires States parties to ensure that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress. The redress should cover all the harm suffered by the victim, including restitution, compensation, rehabilitation of the victim and measures to guarantee that there is no recurrence of the violations, while always bearing in mind the circumstances of each case. 28 The Committee considers that, notwithstanding the evidentiary benefits to victims afforded by a criminal investigation, a civil proceeding and the victim’s claim for reparation should not be dependent on the conclusion of a criminal proceeding. It considers that compensation should not be delayed until criminal liability has been established. A civil proceeding should be available independently of the criminal proceeding and necessary legislation and institutions for such civil procedures should be in place. If criminal 27 28 See the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, on his mission to Kazakhstan, A/HRC/13/39/Add.3, paras. 51 and 59. See communication No. 269/2005, Salem v. Tunisia, decision adopted on 7 November 2007, para. 16.8. 17