CAT/C/52/D/402/2009 national registry of detained persons.15 In view of the lack of information provided by the State party on these matters or on the arguments set out in its concluding observations, the Committee can only find that the State party has breached its obligations under article 11 of the Convention. 11.7 Regarding the alleged violation of article 12, read in conjunction with articles 6 and 7, and of article 13, of the Convention, the Committee takes note of the complainant’s claim that, despite repeated complaints to the various judicial authorities, the State party has not conducted a prompt and impartial investigation more than 12 years after the events described. The Committee notes that the State party has not contested this allegation. The Committee recalls the obligation to carry out a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed.16 In the absence of an explanation by the State party as to the reasons for the failure, more than a decade after the events, to conduct any investigation whatever into the acts of torture during various periods of detention, denounced on many occasions by the complainant, the Committee finds a violation of article 12 read alone and read in conjunction with articles 6 and 7 of the Convention. 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. 11.8 Regarding the alleged violation of article 14 of the Convention, the Committee notes the complainant’s allegations 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 article 14 of the Convention recognizes not only the right to fair and adequate compensation, but also requires States parties 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.17 Given the lack of a prompt and impartial investigation despite the complainant’s numerous claims that he was tortured, and despite marks showing on his face during his appearances in court, in particular on 4 July 2005, the Committee finds that the State party is also in breach of its obligations under article 14 of the Convention. 11.9 The Committee also takes note of the complainant’s allegation that statements and confessions obtained under torture remained in his case file and served as the basis for his conviction. The Committee recalls that, in its concluding observations, it stated that it remained concerned about the lack of any provision in the State party’s legislation clearly specifying that any statement that is proved to have been obtained under torture may not be cited as evidence in any proceedings.18 In light of the information submitted by the complainant, as substantiated by information available to the Committee at the time of adoption of its concluding observations, the Committee finds a violation of article 15 of the Convention. 11.10 With regard to the procedure established in article 22, the Committee notes that, by a letter of 15 December 2010, the complainant informed the Committee that he wished to withdraw his complaint; that another letter from the complainant, of 21 October 2010, seems to have been sent to his counsel; that the two letters give different reasons for 15 16 17 18 14 Ibid. Communication No. 269/2005, Ali Ben Salem v. Tunisia, decision adopted on 7 November 2007, para. 16.7. Ibid., para. 16.8. CAT/C/DZA/CO/3, para. 18. GE.14-05037