CAT/C/52/D/402/2009 the State party did not promptly carry out a preliminary investigation, making it impossible to prosecute the persons implicated, in violation of article 12 read in conjunction with articles 6 and 7 of the Convention. 3.6 The State party has not given the complainant the least possibility of a prompt and impartial consideration of the alleged facts, thus contravening article 13 of the Convention. The complainant recalls that, in accordance with the Committee’s jurisprudence, the State party is under the obligation to carry out an investigation, regardless of whether a formal complaint for acts of torture was lodged.7 3.7 The inaction of the public prosecutor’s office in fact precludes any possibility of bringing a civil suit for damages because, pursuant to the Algerian Code of Criminal Procedure, a judgement in a civil proceeding is stayed for as long as ongoing criminal proceedings have not concluded. If it can be said that the criminal action was initiated in 2001, when, on the basis of the complainant’s report, the prosecutor general of Tébessa referred his case to the investigating judge, in practice the complainant is denied any possible compensation, in violation of the terms of article 14 of the Convention. Moreover, article 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires, for the filing of a civil complaint, a set of conditions such as the name and address of those responsible for the abuses, which the complainant does not know. He considers that these obstacles also constitute a violation of article 14 of the Convention. 3.8 Despite the complainant’s repeated complaints that acts of torture were inflicted on him, in particular at his hearing before the investigating judge on 4 July 2005, the statements and confessions obtained under torture remained in the complainant’s case file and served as the basis for his conviction, in violation of article 15 of the Convention. 3.9 In the event that the Committee does not find a violation of article 1 of the Convention, the complainant considers that the treatment inflicted on him falls at the very least within the scope of article 16 of the Convention, and that therefore the Committee should find a violation of this provision alone as well as a violation of the aforementioned provisions read in conjunction with article 16 of the Convention. 3.10 As for domestic remedies, the complainant has systematically, and on every occasion, denounced these acts of torture before the competent Algerian authorities. In April 2001, he complained to the prosecutor of the Tébessa court, and then to the prosecutor general, the investigating judge, and the Tébessa court, both during the hearing in first instance and on appeal. He also denounced these acts of torture in June and July 2005 during his appearance before the investigating judge of the court of Bir Mourad Raïs on 4 July 2005, and then at every substantive hearing before that court. Complaints about these acts of torture have been lodged with seven judicial authorities in all, without result. 3.11 The complainant also invokes the lack of independence of the competent judicial authorities, which makes remedies ineffective, with no real prospects of success. In accordance with the Committee’s jurisprudence, the complainant is not required to exhaust remedies that are unlikely to be effective. He also cites risks to his life and safety, and mentions the legal impossibility of bringing judicial proceedings following the adoption of order No. 06-01 of 27 February 2006 implementing the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation, which prohibits any proceedings against Government officials for acts committed during the “national tragedy”. 7 8 The complainant refers to communication No. 6/1990, Parot v. Spain, decision adopted on 2 May 1995, para. 10.4, and communication No. 59/1996, Blanco Abad v. Spain, decision adopted on 14 May 1998, para. 8.6. GE.14-05037