CAT/C/59/D/549/2013 ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed. In the present case, the Committee finds a violation of article 12 of the Convention. 7.5 By failing to meet this obligation, the State party also failed to fulfil its responsibility under article 13 of the Convention to guarantee the right of the complainant to lodge a complaint, which presupposes that the authorities provide a satisfactory response to such a complaint by launching a prompt and impartial investigation. 9 In addition, the Committee notes that the complainant and his family received threats and that, on the complainant’s release from prison, the State party did nothing to protect him from being intimidated for the action he took before the judicial authorities. The State party has not provided any information to refute this part of the communication. The Committee therefore also finds a violation of article 13 of the Convention. 7.6 As for the complainant’s claims under article 14 of the Convention, the Committee recalls that this article not only recognizes 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 recalls that redress should cover all the harm suffered by the victim and should encompass, among other measures, restitution, compensation and guarantees of nonrepetition of the violations, taking into account the circumstances of the individual case.10 In the present case, the Committee notes that the complainant claims to suffer from trauma and serious physical after-effects of the torture, and that he cannot stand up for more than an hour without feeling severe pain in his back. In spite of this, he has not benefited from any treatment or rehabilitation measures. The Committee is of the view that the failure to conduct a prompt and impartial investigation has deprived the complainant of the possibility of availing himself of the right to redress, as provided for in article 14 of the Convention.11 7.7 With regard to article 15, the Committee takes note of the complainant’s claim that the judicial proceedings against him for attempted murder were brought on the basis of confessions extracted from him under torture, as certified by a medical examination. The State party has provided no argument to counter this claim. The Committee recalls that the generality of the terms of article 15 of the Convention derives from the absolute nature of the prohibition of torture and therefore implies an obligation for any State party to verify that statements included in proceedings under its jurisdiction were not made under torture. 12 In the present case, the Committee notes that the statements signed under torture by the complainant served as the basis for his indictment and as justification for his continued detention for a period of two months and 20 days (from 4 May 2007 to 27 July 2007); that the physical abuse he suffered was confirmed by a doctor; that the complainant was released on bail on 24 July 2007 for lack of material evidence; and that, through the intermediary of counsel, he challenged the probative value of the confessions he signed under torture, though without success. The Committee notes that the State party has neither refuted any of these allegations nor included any information on this question or on the subject of the discontinuance of the proceedings against the complainant in the observations it submitted to the Committee. The Committee considers that the State party was under an obligation to verify the substance of the complainant’s claims that his confessions had been obtained under torture, even if the complainant was absent from the national territory, and that by not carrying out such verification and by using those confessions in the judicial 9 10 11 12 GE.17-01070 Ntikarahera v. Burundi, para. 6.4. Ibid., para. 6.5. See also communications No. 376/2009, Bendib v. Algeria, decision adopted on 8 November 2013; and Niyonzima v. Burundi. For a similar approach, see, for example, Niyonzima v. Burundi. See communications No. 419/2010, Ktiti v. Morocco, decision adopted on 26 May 2011, para. 8.8; No. 193/2001, P.E. v. France, decision adopted on 21 November 2002, para. 6.3; and Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.7. 9