CAT/C/61/D/654/2015 have been prosecuted for an offence entailing a maximum prison term of 5 years, despite the fact that the gravity of the evidence would have merited criminal charges entailing commensurate exemplary penalties. The Committee recalls in this connection its concluding observations, in which it expressed concern about the application of the principle of non-retroactivity of criminal law to acts committed prior to the introduction of the crime of torture into the amended Criminal Code of 1999 (under article 101 bis), and consequently recommended that the State party “take all necessary measures to ensure that acts of torture committed before 1999 are prosecuted as offences punishable by penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime” (see CAT/C/TUN/CO/3, paras. 35 and 36). The Committee concludes that there has been a violation of article 4 (2) of the Convention. 7.8 The Committee also notes the complainant’s argument that article 11 was violated because the State party failed to conduct the necessary oversight of his treatment at the time of his arrest and during his detention. In particular, he alleged that his arrest and detention were not accompanied by the requisite procedural safeguards and oversight; that he was deprived of medical care notwithstanding his critical condition; that he was repeatedly denied contact with his family; that he was not assisted by counsel during his pretrial detention; and that he was detained in deplorable conditions. In the absence of compelling evidence from the State party that provision was made for oversight of the conditions of detention of the complainant, the Committee concludes that there has been a violation of article 11 of the Convention by the State party. 20 7.9 With regard to articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the Committee notes with concern that, despite the registration of the complainant’s complaint of torture in 2011 at the Court of First Instance in Tunis, the investigation was closed on 16 February 2012 without any effective investigation being undertaken, although almost 24 years have elapsed since the victim first reported the facts on appearing before the investigating judge at the end of his police custody on 4 September 1993. 7.10 Although the State party claimed that an investigation was opened, it failed to provide any details regarding the progress of the proceedings or the prosecution of the alleged perpetrators of acts of torture and ill-treatment. The Committee recalls the State party’s obligation under article 12 of the Convention to ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation whenever there are reasonable grounds to believe that an act of torture has been committed. 21 Such an investigation should be prompt, impartial and effective.22 In addition, a criminal investigation must seek both to determine the nature and circumstances of the alleged acts and to establish the identity of the persons who may have been involved.23 7.11 The Committee concludes that the State party failed to meet its obligation under article 12 of the Convention. It follows that the State party also failed to uphold its responsibility under article 13 of the Convention to ensure that the complainant had the right to complain to the competent authorities, who should respond in an appropriate manner by launching a prompt and impartial investigation. 24 7.12 With regard to article 14, the complainant argued that the Tunisian State, having deprived him of criminal proceedings as set out above, deprived him, in addition, of the prescribed legal procedures for obtaining compensation for material and non-material damages due to serious crimes such as torture. The Committee further notes that the victim has not benefited from any rehabilitation measure for the severe physical and psychological after-effects that he continues to suffer and that have been categorically attested by medical examinations. The Committee therefore considers that the complainant has been denied his right to redress and compensation under article 14 of the Convention. 20 21 22 23 24 14 See, for example, Gahungu v. Burundi, para. 7.7. See communications, Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.4; and No. 500/2012, Ramírez Martínez et al. v. Mexico, decision adopted on 4 August 2015, para. 17.7. See communication No. 495/2012, N.Z. v. Kazakhstan, decision adopted on 28 November 2014, para. 13.2. See communications Nos. 580/2014, F.K. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 23 November 2015, para. 7.7; and 161/2000, Djemajl et al. v. Yugoslavia, decision adopted on 21 November 2002, para. 9.4. See Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.5. GE.17-16785