CAT/C/57/D/531/2012 8.4 The Committee also observes that, while the State party has maintained that, from September 2010, the complainant was under investigation for using forged documents with intent to defraud, it appears from the file that on 20 January 2011 he requested permission to leave the territory, which was granted on 10 February 2011, and that he was then able to obtain a visa for France; this would seem to suggest that there were no proceedings pending against him at the time of his departure from the country and to support the complainant’s version of events, to which the Committee gives due weight. 8.5 The parties’ divergent accounts notwithstanding, the Committee recalls that it is incumbent on States parties to ensure that any individual who alleges he or she has been subjected to torture in any territory under their jurisdiction has the right to complain and to have his or her case promptly and impartially examined. The State party has provided no justification for its failure to take action in respect of the threats made against the complainant from 2009, followed by acts of violence committed against him by the Inspector General in January 2011. After his arrival in France, the threats against the complainant and his family continued, and the State party has likewise declined to make any comment in that regard, despite the Committee’s requests that it should take all necessary measures to protect the personal inviolability of the complainant and his family and that it should inform the Committee of the measures taken. 8.6 The Committee notes that the complainant has not made any specific claims under provisions of the Convention. Nevertheless, in the light of the information made available to it and without characterizing the acts to which the complainant was subjected, the Committee concludes that the State party has failed to fulfil its responsibility under article 13 of the Convention to guarantee the complainant’s right to lodge a complaint, which presupposes that the authorities provide a proper response to such a complaint by launching a prompt and impartial investigation. 6 8.7 The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, finds that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 13 of the Convention. 9. Pursuant to rule 118 (5) of its rules of procedure (CAT/C/3/Rev.6), the Committee urges the State party to: (a) conduct an independent, transparent and effective investigation into the events in question; (b) take all necessary measures to prevent any threats or acts of violence to which the complainant and his family might be exposed, in particular as a result of having lodged the present complaint; and (c) inform the Committee, within 90 days of the date of transmittal of this decision, of the steps it has taken in response to the views expressed above. 6 GE.16-13805 See communication No. 402/2009, Abdelmalek v. Algeria, 23 May 2014, para. 11.7. 7