PART 2: Procedures of the Human Rights Commitee and the Committee against Torture the submission to the CAT and the only investigation conducted was the one led by the Public Prosecutor, which ended with a complaint being filed with no further action. The lack of a substantive decision by the competent authorities after such a prolonged delay brought the Committee to consider that the requirements of Article 22(5) had been met.177 In V.N.I.M. v. Canada, the complainant had been pursuing remedies in immigration proceedings for more than four years; the CAT Committee considered that any further extension of this time period would be unreasonable.178 In Blanco v. Nicaragua, the complainant had spent nine years in detention by the time he submitted the complaint. No remedies were available to him at that point in time. Whilst the complaint was pending, a new government came to power, and released him after ten years in prison. The new government argued that the complainant now had recourse to new remedies to seek recompense for his detention. The HRC held that the complainant could not be required to pursue further remedies as the application of such remedies would entail an unreasonable prolongation of the complainant’s quest for vindication.179 vii. Burden of Proof The initial burden is with the complainant to prove that he or she has exhausted or genuinely attempted to exhaust all appropriate domestic remedies. The complainant must substantiate any claim that certain remedies are unavailable, ineffective, futile or unreasonably long. Subsequently, the burden shifts to the State party to provide evidence that domestic remedies are still available and effective. This approach is quite flexible and ensures that the burden is shared between the author and the State party. It is thus fundamentally important to submit sufficient details on the complaints being made, the remedies sought and the elements that render the remedies and investigations undertaken by States ineffective. (d) No Simultaneous Submission to Another International Body The ICCPR and CAT will be addressed separately with regard to this ground of inadmissibility, as the rules are materially different. CAT Committee, Ben Salem v. Tunisia, Comm. No. 269/2005, para. 8.5. See also CAT Committee, Gerasimov v. Kazakhstan, Comm. No. 433/2010, para.11.5 [“the renewed investigation was launched on 6 December 2010, almost four years after the alleged incidents had taken place”]; CAT Committee, Sahli v. Algeria, Comm. No. 341/2008, para. 8.5. 178 CAT Committee, V.N.I.M. v. Canada, Comm. No. 119/1998, para. 6.2. 179 HRC, Blanco v. Nicaragua, Comm. No. 328/1988, para. 9.2. 177 71