CAT/C/63/D/678/2015 duly considered by a domestic tribunal; the complainant being anonymous; or, the complaint being examined by another procedure. This leaves only the following grounds for declaring the case inadmissible: (a) the complainant is not a victim; (b) the complainant has not exhausted domestic remedies; or (c) the complaint is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, manifestly ill-founded, or an abuse of the right of individual application; and the State party argues that all these grounds for inadmissibility under the European Convention on Human Rights correspond to the relevant grounds for inadmissibility that would lead to inadmissibility under the Convention against Torture. 4.3 Finally, the State party contests the complainant’s assertion that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted following the appeal to the Director General of Public Prosecutions. Firstly, if the complainant has determined that prosecution is an adequate legal avenue for pursuing relief, he could have initiated a private prosecution against any of the suspected officers. Secondly, he could have filed a complaint directly with the police. Although this possibility is aimed at matters that do not amount to criminal offences by individual police officers, such as failure by the State to provide adequate training to personnel, it would have enabled the police to remedy the alleged violations of articles 10, 11 and 12 of the Convention. Thirdly, there were other more appropriate remedies available to the complainant than prosecution. In particular, he could have sought relief from the Government through an ordinary civil suit, claiming damages and/or a declaratory judgment to establish that his individual rights under the Convention had been violated. The complainant sought compensation for non-pecuniary damages from the Norwegian Civil Affairs Authority, which is a subordinate agency of the Ministry of Justice and Public Security. The Norwegian Civil Affairs Authority’s rejection of the claim was subject to a judicial review by ordinary courts. However, the complainant has not brought the claim for compensation before ordinary courts for judicial review, nor provided any reasons for not doing so. The State party argues that the complainant’s failure to bring the case before an ordinary court of law rendered the complaint inadmissible as regards an alleged violation of article 16 of the Convention. 4.4 Moreover, the State party claims that the complainant could have also sought to establish through a declaratory action that there had been a violation of the Convention. The Supreme Court of Norway has established that a declaratory action can be taken against the Government to establish that there has been a breach of an individual’s human rights pursuant to human rights conventions that have been incorporated into Norwegian law. The European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights have already been given status as Norwegian law, which means that it would have been possible for the complainant to seek a declaratory judgment with respect to the provisions corresponding to article 16 of the Convention against Torture in the European Convention on Human Rights (art. 3) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (art. 7). In the same way, the complainant could have sought a declaratory action to establish a violation under article 12 of the Convention against Torture through article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and under articles 10 and 11 of the Convention against Torture through article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, since they correspond to the same obligations. 4.5 The State party observes that there is no information in the complaint to suggest that the application of the above-mentioned remedies would be unreasonably prolonged or unlikely to bring effective relief to the complainant. The State party notes that it would be justifiable to absolve individuals from the requirement to exhaust remedies in time-critical matters due to the individual circumstances of a particular case. However, in the present case, the alleged violations took place in 2006, and the complainant waited for five years before even reporting them to the authorities. The State party also notes that the case documents do not show that ordinary court proceedings were unavailable to the complainant due to financial or other reasons, as the complainant was given legal aid at an earlier stage of the case, and he is also assisted by legal counsel with the present complaint. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 In his submission dated 15 September 2015, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations on the admissibility of the case. 4