Seeking Remedies for Torture Victims: A Handbook on the Individual Complaints Procedures of the UN Tready Bodies The author appears to have been represented through legal aid in his domestic and international proceedings and that he, in vain, tried to obtain legal aid to pursue judicial review of the negative PRRA decision. It therefore concludes that the author has pursued domestic remedies with the necessary diligence.171 vi. Unreasonable Prolongation of Remedies The Committees do not expect persons to pursue remedies which are unreasonably prolonged. This exception to the normal domestic remedies rule is expressly found in both the OP and Article 22 of the CAT. In R.L. et al. v. Canada, it was held that even if a complainant anticipates overly lengthy proceedings, he or she must still make a reasonable effort to exhaust domestic remedies.172 Furthermore, if remedies are prolonged due to the fault of the complainant, then they will not be held to be unduly prolonged.173 There is no standard period of time which is applied to determine whether a remedy is “unreasonably prolonged”: the period will vary according to the complexity of the case. The State party will always be required to provide plausible explanations for any substantial delay exceeding the time limits reasonably expected in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, such as the complexity of the case.174 It needs to be noted that both Committees have stated that for grave allegations of human rights violations, including torture and ill-treatment, the effectiveness of the remedy will depend upon the expeditiousness applied to investigate into the facts and to provide redress to the victim/s.175 Katsaris v. Greece offers an illustrative example; two separate preliminary investigations were carried out into the complainant’s allegations of ill-treatment; the first one, prompted by a complaint filed by the author, was dismissed by the Prosecutor of First Instance three years and three months later, and the second one, ex officio, was dismissed one year and four months later. The HRC concluded that, in the light of the unreasonable length of both preliminary proceedings, and given the additional delay that would have prompted a complaint to the Appeals Prosecutor (with the likely prospect of further preliminary investigations), the complaint was admissible.176 The same conclusion was drawn by the CAT Committee in Ben Salem v. Tunisia. Almost five years had elapsed between the incident at the police station and 171 172 173 174 175 176 70 HRC, Warsame v. Canada, Comm. No. 1959/2010, para. 7.6. HRC, R.L. et al. v. Canada, Comm. No. 358/1989, para. 6.4. See, e.g., HRC, H.S. v. France, Comm. No. 184/1984. See, inter alia, HRC, Gunaratna v. Sri Lanka, Comm. No. 1432/2005, para. 7.5. HRC, Nikolaos Katsaris v. Greece, Comm. No. 1558/2007, para. 6.5. HRC, Nikolaos Katsaris v. Greece, Comm. No. 1558/2007, para. 6.5; see also HRC, Giri v. Nepal, Comm. No. 1761/2008, para. 6.3.