CAT/C/47/D/353/2008 Consideration of merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 9.2 The Committee notes that the complainant has alleged a violation of article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention, on the grounds that the State party failed in its duty to prevent and punish acts of torture. It also notes his allegations on the treatment he was subjected to while in detention and the medical certificates, provided by the complainant describing the physical injuries inflicted on him as well as the absence of legal safeguards while in administrative detention. The State party merely stated that there was no link between the facts established in the medical report of 28 February 2006, the report of the medical clinic of the Ministry of Interior of 4 May 2006 and the possible use of torture against the complainant. In the absence of a detailed explanation by the State party, and based on the documentation provided, the Committee concludes that the facts, as submitted, constitute torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention, and that the State party failed in its duty to prevent and punish acts of torture, in violation of article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention. 9.3 As to the allegations concerning the violation of article 12 of the Convention, the Committee notes that according to the complainant the State party failed to investigate his claims that he was subjected to torture while in detention. The State party has not refuted this allegation. Furthermore, the complainant’s appeal against the inaction of the District Prosecutor’s Office has been pending for several years, as confirmed by the State party. In the circumstances, the Committee reiterates that article 12 of the Convention 2 requires the State party to proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation whenever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed. In the absence of any other information, the Committee considers that the State party failed to fulfil its obligations under article 12, of the Convention. The State party also failed to comply with its obligation under article 13 of the Convention to ensure that the complainant has the right to complain to, and to have his case promptly and impartially investigated by, its competent authorities, as well as under article 14, to provide him, as a victim of torture, with redress and compensation . 9.4 The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, considers that the State party violated articles 1, 2, paragraph 1, 12, 13 and 14 of the Convention. 10. In conformity with rule 118 (former rule 112), paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure (CAT/C/3/Rev.5), the Committee wishes to be informed, within 90 days, on the steps taken by the State party to respond to this decision. [Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] 2 6 Communication No. 8/1991, Halimi-Nedzibi v. Austria, Views adopted on 18 November 1993, para. 13.5.