his complaint, the complainant concludes that he was denied the right personally to take over the prosecution of the case. As CPC sets no time limit in which the Public Prosecutor must decide whether to request a formal judicial investigation into the incident, this legal provision is open to abuse. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that he has exhausted all available criminal domestic remedies by having filed a complaint with the Public Prosecutor’s Office. In the complainant’s view, civil/administrative remedies would not provide sufficient redress in his case.a 3.2 The complainant submits that the allegations of violations of the Convention should be interpreted against a backdrop of systematic police brutality to which the Roma and others in the State party are subjected, as well as the generally poor human rights situation in the State party.b He claims a violation of article 2, paragraph 1, read in connection with articles 1, and 16, paragraph 1, for having been subjected to ill-treatment for the purposes of obtaining a confession, or otherwise intimidating or punishing him.c 3.3 He claims a violation of article 12 alone and/or read in connection with 16, paragraph 1, as the State party’s authorities failed to conduct an official investigation into the incident that gave rise to this complaint for more than 3½ years, and almost 34 months after the complainant filed a criminal complaint with the Public Prosecutor’s Office. To date, the officer remains unidentified and, consequently, the institution of formal judicial investigations is impossible. Since the Public Prosecutor’s Office has failed formally to dismiss the complainant’s criminal complaint, he cannot personally take over the prosecution of the case in the capacity of a “private prosecutor”. The complainant also alleges that the public prosecutors in Serbia and Montenegro seldom institute criminal proceedings against police officers accused of misconduct and delay the dismissal of complaints, sometimes for years, thereby denying the injured party the right to prosecute his/her own case. 3.4 The complainant claims a violation of articles 13 alone or read in connection with article 16 of the Convention as, despite having exhausted all criminal domestic remedies, he has received no redress for the violation of his rights. To date, the State party’s authorities have not even identified the police officer concerned.d 3.5 Article 14 is said to have been violated since the complainant was denied a criminal remedy and has thus been barred from obtaining fair and adequate compensation in a civil lawsuit. The complainant explains that under domestic law, there are two different procedures through which compensation for criminal offences may be pursued: by criminal proceedings under article 103 of CPC following criminal proceedings, and/or by civil action for damages under articles 154 and 200 of the Law on Obligations. The first avenue was not an option, as no criminal proceedings were instituted, and the second was not availed of by the complainant, as it is the practice of the State party’s courts to suspend civil proceedings for damages arising from criminal offences until prior completion of the respective criminal proceedings. Even if the complainant had attempted to avail himself of this recourse, he would have been prevented from pursuing it as, under articles 186 and 106 of the Civil Procedure Code he would have to identify the name of the respondent. Since the complainant to date remains unaware of the name of the officer against whom he is claiming violations of his rights, the institution of a civil action would have been impossible. 114