told the HLC that during the same hearing, X first confirmed that he had been sexually abused, and then, after a break, denied the accusations. Only the retractions were reflected in the court’s records. A few weeks later, X contacted W and told her that his parents had forced him to modify his testimony. Aleksandar Janković, Maksim Petrović and Vojislav Brajković who were the three other men involved in the sexual abuse. It also informed Vera Miscevic, the child’s guardian, that she could take over the criminal prosecution within eight days. On 16 May 2003, Vera Miscevic gave a power of attorney to the HLC which made another request for a more comprehensive investigation which would cover all five men. On 10 June 2003, she revoked it. As a result, the HLC’s request was rejected on 18 June 2003 on the ground that it was not authorized to make such a request. The author filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal Section of the Pozarevac District Court which annulled on 27 June 2003 the decision to terminate the investigation and ordered that it be extended to include all five men. On 29 July 2003, Vera Miscevic granted again a power of attorney to the HLC. On 12 August 2003, she revoked it again and for the last time. From then on, the HLC was barred from participating in the court proceedings and denied access to the case file. On 19 November 2003, the District Court suspended the investigation because the Centre for Social Work, citing the victim’s state of health, decided not to pursue the case any further. 2.5 X’s story of sexual abuse received extensive media coverage. From January 2003 to June 2004, many articles appeared in the national printed media, focusing among other things, on the public outrage concerning the incident, the closure of criminal proceedings, the intimidation of witnesses and the suspected collusion between the alleged perpetrators and Government officers. 2.6 According to the author, from November 2002 onwards, eyewitnesses and other A residents were threatened and bribed to keep silent about the sexual abuse of X by a group of local criminals. In December 2002, X’s father received a telephone call from Miodrag Radović who offered him money if the boy changed his story. W, the nurse who testified on two occasions, received many threats. On 28 October 2004, the author submitted a request to the Chief of Public Security at the Ministry of Internal Affairs for police protection for W. This request went unanswered and the threats continued. W then also sought protection from the Chief of Police in Pozarevac, a nearby town. This request was denied. 2.10 The HLC continued to monitor X’s situation after August 2003, but had no information as to the timing or the conditions, if any, attached to the reinstatement of parental authority or whether the Centre for Social Work in A or Požarevac continued to exercise some supervisory responsibility over the child. According to the State party, the Municipal Court of A reinstated parental authority on 17 September 2004. 2.7 In separate legal proceedings, X’s parents were convicted of severe neglect of parental responsibility on 27 March 2002 and stripped of their parental rights by the Municipal Court of A on 28 January 2003. X and his five underage siblings were taken into care on 3 February 2003 and Vera Miscevic, a social worker at the Centre for Social Work of A, was appointed as their legal guardian. The complaint 3.1 The author claims a violation of article 7, taken alone and read in conjunction with article 2, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Covenant. It submits that rape and other forms of sexual assault constitute treatment in violation of article 7. 1 In the present case, the treatment suffered by the victim clearly constitutes a cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, especially in the light of his personal circumstances such as his age, his membership of the Roma group, his low mental ability and unstable emotional state. The State party should have investigated the incident promptly and impartially, and identified and prosecuted the perpetrators. 2.8 After the charges were dropped by the Office of the Public Prosecutor on 10 March 2003, the victim was given eight days to initiate a private prosecution. The author did so, on his behalf, on 18 March 2003. At a hearing before the investigating judge on 1 April 2003, four additional witnesses were heard. Three of them confirmed that X had been sexually abused. On 9 April 2003, X’s parents sought to withdraw the power of attorney from the HLC and abandon the private prosecution. However, by then, they had lost their parental rights over X. The HLC believes that X’s parents have received some benefit in exchange for convincing their child not to pursue criminal proceedings against his abusers: the child’s father spoke publicly about having been offered something if the child dropped his accusations. Shortly afterwards, the family home contained new furnishings which the parents were formerly unable to acquire. 3.2 In addition or in the alternative, the author alleges a violation of the victim’s right to privacy as protected by article 17, taken alone and read in conjunction with article 2, paragraphs 1 and 3. It recalls that the Committee’s jurisprudence 1 See communication No. 981/2001, Casafranca de Gómez v. Peru, Views adopted on 23 July 2003, paras. 2.2 and 7.1. 2.9 On 7 May 2003, the Office of the Public Prosecutor rejected the HLC’s request to investigate 30