CAT/C/63/D/678/2015 the complainant’s injuries. Nevertheless, on the basis of the information before it, the Committee cannot conclude that the complainant suffered inhuman and degrading treatment while in police detention. 10.3 With regard to the complainant’s claim of a violation of article 12, the Committee recalls that article 12 requires that the investigation be prompt, impartial and effective. 30 The Committee notes that despite the fact that the complaint against ill-treatment was filed by the complainant five years after the alleged incident, the State party conducted an investigation which resulted in a decision to not prosecute the police officers because “it would be unlikely that an investigation based on the available information would produce evidence that he has been a victim of a criminal offence”. The Committee observes that the complainant was aware of the complaint procedure due to his prior incident with the police in 2005 and had retained legal assistance after his release from detention on 9 November 2006. The complainant provided no documentary evidence that he had complained, during the court hearing on 7 January 2008, about the beatings. In the particular circumstances of this case, the Committee finds that the complainant has failed to substantiate that the investigation conducted into his allegations of ill-treatment was not prompt, impartial and effective. Accordingly, on the basis of the material before it, the Committee cannot conclude that the State party has failed to comply with its obligation to carry out a prompt, impartial and effective investigation into the complainant’s allegations of ill-treatment. 10.4 As to the claims of violations of articles 10 and 11, the Committee notes that since it could not conclude that that the State party had violated its obligations under article 16 of the Convention, it is not in a position to make any finding with respect to the rights protected therein. 11. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the facts before it does not disclose any violation of the Convention by the State party. 30 12 N.Z. v. Kazakhstan (CAT/C/53/D/495/2012), para. 13.2.