CAT/C/60/D/651/2015 7.5 The Committee notes that the State party did conduct several investigations into the torture claims. On 30 December 2011, for example, the investigation was discontinued since the authorities ascertained that no crime of torture had been committed. The Committee recalls that an investigation in itself is not sufficient to demonstrate the State party’s conformity with its obligations under article 12 of the Convention if it can be shown not to have been conducted impartially. 9 In the present case, the complainant’s claims regarding torture were initially ignored by the authorities. The prosecutor’s office finally issued a report dated 23 December 2015, on the basis of which an investigation into the author’s claims was discontinued, without assessing the detailed evidence presented by the complainant. The Committee recalls that article 12 of the Convention also requires that the investigation be prompt and impartial, promptness being essential both to ensure that the victim cannot continue to be subjected to prohibited acts and also because, in general, unless the methods employed have permanent or serious effects, the physical traces of torture, and especially of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, soon disappear. 10 Despite contemporary evidence, including two medical certificates confirming physical signs of torture, and the complainant’s detailed description of the methods of torture used along with the names of perpetrators and witnesses, the State party failed to examine the evidence and to identify any perpetrators. 7.6 In the light of the above findings and based on the materials before it, the Committee concludes that the State party has failed to comply with its obligation to carry out a prompt and impartial investigation into the complainant’s allegations of torture, in violation of article 12 of the Convention. The Committee considers that the State party has also failed to comply with its obligation under article 13 and to ensure the complainant’s right to complain and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by the competent authorities. 7.7 With regard to the alleged violation of article 14 of the Convention, the Committee notes that it is uncontested that no perpetrators of torture were identified and, therefore, the complainant was not able to bring a claim of damages as a result of the torture suffered. The Committee recalls in this respect that article 14 of the Convention recognizes not only 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 redress should cover all the harm suffered by the victim, including restitution, compensation, rehabilitation of the victim and measures to guarantee that there is no recurrence of the violations, while always bearing in mind the circumstances of each case. A civil proceeding should be available independently of the criminal proceeding and necessary legislation and institutions for such civil procedures should be in place. On the basis of the information before it, the Committee concludes that the State party is also in breach of its obligations under article 14 of the Convention.11 8. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, is of the view that the facts before it disclose violations of article 1 in conjunction with article 2 (1) and of articles 12, 13 and 14 of the Convention. 9. The Committee urges the State party to conduct a proper, impartial and independent investigation in order to bring to justice those responsible for the complainant’s treatment, to provide the complainant with redress and fair and adequate reparation for the suffering inflicted, including compensation and full rehabilitation, and to prevent similar violations in the future. Pursuant to rule 118, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the State party should inform the Committee, within 90 days from the date of its transmittal, of the steps it has taken to respond to the present decision. 9 10 11 6 See communication No. 257/2004, Keremedchiev v. Bulgaria, decision adopted on 11 November 2008, para. 9.4. See communication No. 59/1996, Blanco Abad v. Spain, decision of 14 May 1998, para. 8.2. Ibid., para. 5.5.