CAT/C/55/D/494/2012 national register of detained persons.8 In view of the fact that of the State party has not provided any information for the present individual communication to refute the allegations of the complainant, the Committee finds, in the case in point, a violation of article 11 of the Convention. 6.7 The Committee notes that, according to the complainant, a few days after his release, he requested a hearing with the Public Prosecutor of the Ouargla Court and the Chief Prosecutor of the Court, whom he told about his arrest and to whom he reported the treatment that he received while in detention; that the courts dismissed the complaint; that he subsequently lodged a complaint dated 12 April 2011 with the Ministry of Justice, to no avail; and that, on 28 November 2011, after meeting with the Prosecutor, he was told that, as it is a matter of military security, no action would be taken. The Committee also notes that the complainant reportedly made a final appeal to the Public Prosecutor by registered letter, dated 28 January 2012, to ask him to launch an investigation and that, to date, no reply to this letter has been received. The Committee notes that the State party has made no comment on these claims. It recalls the obligation to carry out a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable grounds to believe that an act of torture has been committed.9 In the absence of an explanation by the State party as to the reasons for the failure, since the events in 2011, to conduct any investigation whatsoever into the acts of torture denounced on many occasions by the complainant, the Committee finds a violation of article 12. The Committee also considers that the State party has failed to fulfil its obligation under article 13 of the Convention to ensure the complainant’s right to complain and to have his or her case promptly and impartially examined by the competent authorities.10 6.8 Regarding the alleged violation of article 14 of the Convention, the Committee notes the complainant’s claim that the State party has deprived him of any form of redress by failing to act on his complaint and by not immediately launching a public investigation. The Committee recalls that, under its article 14, States parties to the Convention recognize not only the right to fair and adequate compensation, but also the requirement to ensure that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress. The Committee considers that redress should cover all the harm suffered by the victim, including restitution, compensation and measures to guarantee that there is no recurrence of the violations, always bearing in mind the circumstances of each case. 11 Given the lack of a prompt and impartial investigation, despite the complainant’s numerous claims that he was tortured, which were corroborated by a medical certificate and photographs taken on the day after his release, the Committee finds that the State party is also in breach of its obligations under article 14 of the Convention. 7. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, finds that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 1; article 2 (1), read in conjunction with article 1; article 11; article 12; article 13; and article 14 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 8. Pursuant to rule 118 (5) of its rules of procedure (CAT/C/3/Rev.6), the Committee urges the State party to conduct an impartial investigation into the incidents in question, with a view to bringing to justice those responsible for the complainant’s treatment, and to inform it, within 90 days of the date of the transmittal of this decision, of the steps it has 8 9 10 11 See CAT/C/DZA/CO/3, para. 5. See Ali Ben Salem v. Tunisia, para. 16.7. See communication No. 402/2009, Abdelmalek v. Algeria, decision adopted on 23 May 2014, para. 11.7. See Ali Ben Salem v. Tunisia, para. 16.8. 7