to. The Committee notes that, although the injured party may not be a party to pardon proceedings in a material sense, he or she can be heard if he or she opposes the pardon, and that, according to the State party, the injured party has no right as such to request that no pardon be allowed. The Committee recalls that it is necessary to exhaust only those remedies that have a reasonable chance of success, and is of the view that, in the present case, the complainant did not have such remedies available. Accordingly, the Committee considers the communication admissible under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention. 6.4 The Committee notes that the complainant has alleged violations of articles 2 and 4 of the Convention, maintaining that the State party has failed in its obligations to prevent and punish torture. These provisions apply to the extent that the acts of which the complainant was a victim are considered to be torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. The Committee takes note of the complainant’s allegation that his treatment constituted torture within the meaning of the Convention. In the Committee’s view, however, it is unnecessary to rule on whether the treatment meted out to the complainant was consistent with the concept of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention, since the State party has not contradicted the complainant’s allegation that he was tortured. The Committee notes that the courts that tried the complainant’s case concluded that he had indeed been tortured. The Committee must, however, rule on the State party’s argument that the complainant does not have a right to object to the granting of the pardon, and that the complainant therefore does not qualify as a victim in the meaning of article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Committee points out that the State party has not denied that the complainant was tortured, allowing criminal proceedings to be brought against the Civil Guards who injured the complainant and accepting that the treatment suffered by the complainant was described during the trial as torture, and that three people were in principle found guilty. 6.5 The Committee accordingly considers that the complaint raises issues of importance in connection with article 2, paragraph 1, article 4, paragraph 2, and article 14, paragraph 1, of the Convention, which should be examined on their merits. 6.6 As to the alleged violation of article 2 of the Convention, the Committee notes the complainant’s argument that the obligation to take effective measures to prevent torture has not been honoured because the pardons granted to the Civil Guards have the practical effect of allowing torture to go unpunished and encouraging its repetition. The Committee is of the view that, in the circumstances of the present case, the measures taken by the State party are contrary to the obligation established in article 2 of the Convention, according to which the State party must take effective measures to prevent acts of torture. Consequently, the Committee concludes that such acts constitute a violation of article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Committee also concludes that the absence of appropriate punishment is incompatible with the duty to prevent acts of torture. 6.7 With regard to the alleged violation of article 4, the Committee recalls its previous jurisprudence to the effect that one of the purposes of the Convention is to avoid allowing persons who have committed acts of torture to escape unpunished. The Committee also recalls that article 4 sets out a duty for States parties to impose appropriate penalties against those held responsible for committing acts of torture, taking into account the grave nature of those acts. The Committee considers that, in the circumstances of the present case, the imposition of lighter penalties and the granting of pardons to the Civil Guards are incompatible with the duty to impose appropriate punishment. The Committee further notes that the Civil Guards were not 151