CAT/C/48/D/433/2010 means that the previous violation continues to have an effect upon him, which itself amounts to a violation of the Convention. 3.2 The complainant claims that the State party has failed to establish adequate safeguards to prevent ill-treatment and torture, in breach of article 2 of the Convention. His detention was not registered nor was he provided with access to a lawyer and independent examination by a medical doctor. 3.3 In violation of articles 12 and 13, no prompt, impartial and effective investigation was carried out into his allegations of torture. The investigation was not conducted by an independent and impartial body, since it was entrusted to the Southern Department of Internal Affairs who were alleged to have committed the torture and thereafter to the body hierarchically superior, the Regional Department of Internal Affairs. Furthermore, the preliminary investigation commenced only one month after the complaint and the scientific examination of the complainant’s clothes was conducted three months after the alleged torture. The investigation failed to interview key witnesses and he was excluded from effective participation in the investigative process and never consulted on the substance of the investigation. The investigation failed to ascertain and attribute criminal responsibility for the torture inflicted on him. Although his attempts to bring about an effective investigation continued after the entry into force of the Convention, no investigation has been undertaken that satisfies the requirements of the Convention. 3.4 He further claims that the domestic law effectively prevents him from bringing civil proceedings for compensation in violation of article 14 of the Convention, as the right to compensation is recognized only after conviction of the officials by a criminal court. As a result, he has not obtained compensation or medical rehabilitation for his torture. State party’s preliminary observations 4.1 On 18 January 2011, the State party provided its preliminary observations. It submits that, on 6 December 2010, the General Prosecutor’s Office quashed the DCECC decision of 1 February 2008 refusing to initiate criminal proceedings and opened a criminal case against the police officers of the Southern Department of Internal Affairs pursuant to article 347-1, part 2 (a), of the Criminal Code (torture). 4.2 The State party further refers to a number of decrees, policies and plans of actions to combat torture that have been adopted in response to torture allegations, including the regular monitoring of places of detention with the participation of representatives of nongovernmental organizations, as well as to the organization of training sessions, round tables and seminars on the prevention of torture and ill-treatment for law enforcement personnel. Representatives’ comments 5.1 On 28 February 2011, the complainant’s representatives confirmed that, on 6 December 2010, in response to the complaint submitted to the Committee, the General Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal case under article 347-1, part 2 (a), of the Criminal Code (torture).7 5.2 On 8 January 2011, a psychiatric examination of the complainant was ordered. In view of the anxiety caused by the renewed investigation and interrogations, the complainant’s health deteriorated and on 14 January 2011 a doctor prescribed his hospitalization. Therefore, he requested that the examination be postponed. Nevertheless, 7 6 A copy of the decision of 6 December 2010 is available on file.