CAT/C/71/D/858/2018 party did not allow A.H. to file a complaint. The Committee considers that so long a delay in initiating an investigation into allegations of torture is patently unjustified. In this regard, the Committee recalls the State party’s obligation under article 12 of the Convention to ensure that a prompt and impartial ex officio investigation is carried out, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed.45 In the present case, the Committee therefore finds a violation of article 12 of the Convention in respect of A.H. 6.9 By failing to meet this obligation, the State party has also failed to fulfil its responsibility under article 13 of the Convention to guarantee A.H.’s right to lodge a complaint, which presupposes that the authorities provide a satisfactory response by launching a prompt and impartial investigation. 46 The Committee therefore finds that a violation of article 13 of the Convention has also been committed in respect of A.H. 6.10 Regarding 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 non-repetition of the violations, taking into account the circumstances of the individual case.47 In the present case, in the absence of a prompt and impartial investigation, despite compelling testimony that A.H. was a victim of acts of torture, which have gone unpunished, the Committee finds that the State party has also failed to fulfil its obligations under article 14 of the Convention.48 6.11 With regard to the violations of articles 12, 13 and 14 of the Convention in respect of B.N., the Committee notes that the enforced disappearance of A.H. and the repeated threats and intimidation to which B.N. was subjected were a source of intense and ongoing suffering for him and that the authorities never acted on his complaints. The Committee notes that, as the events were never acknowledged by the State party, no remedy was available to B.N. Consequently, the State party did not conduct a prompt, impartial and effective investigation, B.N. was not able to file a complaint, and he was therefore deprived of any means of obtaining compensation. The Committee also notes the complainant’s claim that the involvement of persons close to the Government in A.H.’s enforced disappearance would have made the State party more reluctant to open an investigation and heightened B.N.’s fear of taking other steps at the national level. The Committee recalls that, according to article 14, the term “victims” is understood to mean persons who have individually or collectively suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that constitute violations of the Convention.49 This concept of a victim also includes close family, such as A.H.’s father. The Committee notes that the State party has not put forward any argument that would lead to the conclusion that B.N. does not fall into this category. Moreover, the Committee considers that the anguish and suffering experienced by B.N. owing to the lack of information that would have allowed clarification of what had happened to his son were exacerbated by the failure to acknowledge B.N.’s status as a victim, which thus became a cause of revictimization that is incompatible with the principles enshrined in the Convention. 50 The Committee considers that, in the present case, the very fact that the complainant has at no time been able to take part as plaintiff in investigative proceedings, more than four years after the events in question, in itself entails a violation of articles 12, 13 and 14 of the Convention. After such a long period has passed, the possibility of playing an active and effective part in proceedings is lessened to such an extent that the impairment of 45 46 47 48 49 50 10 Ndagijimana v. Burundi, para. 8.5; Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi, para. 8.5; Kabura v. Burundi (CAT/C/59/D/549/2013), para. 7.4; and Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.4. Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.5. Ibid., para. 8.6, and Ntikarahera v. Burundi, para. 6.5. Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi, para. 8.7. Yrusta and Del Valle Yrusta v. Argentina, para. 7.10, and general comment No. 3 (2012), para 3. Yrusta and Del Valle Yrusta v. Argentina, para. 7.10. GE.21-12084