CAT/C/51/D/376/2009 his torturers have not been convicted, prosecuted, subject to investigation or even questioned, which amounts to a violation of the right of Mounir Hammouche’s family to redress under article 14 of the Convention. 3.8 The complainant repeats that, in accordance with the definition set out in article 1 of the Convention, the violent acts inflicted on Mounir Hammouche amount to torture. However, should the Committee fail to endorse such a characterization, the fact remains that the physical abuse endured by the victim constitutes, in any case, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and that the State party therefore also has an obligation to prevent such acts and to punish the perpetrators when those acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the acquiescence of a public official, pursuant to article 16 of the Convention. State party’s failure to cooperate 4. On 27 January 2011, 27 February 2012 and 21 May 2012, the State party was invited to submit its comments on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The Committee notes that no information has been received in this connection. It regrets the State party’s refusal to communicate any information on the admissibility and/or merits of the complainant’s claims. The Committee recalls that the State party is obliged, pursuant to the Convention, to submit to the Committee written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that the State may have taken. In the absence of a response from the State party, due weight must be given to the complainant’s allegations, which have been properly substantiated. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 5.1 As required under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee notes that the case of Mounir Hammouche was brought to the attention of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur on torture in 2007. However, the Committee notes that extra-conventional procedures or mechanisms established by the Commission on Human Rights or the Human Rights Council, whose mandates are to examine and report publicly on human rights situations in specific countries or territories or on cases of widespread human rights violations worldwide, do not constitute procedures of international investigation or settlement within the meaning of article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention.17 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the examination of Mounir Hammouche’s case by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur on torture does not render the communication inadmissible under this provision. 5.2 Regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee recalls with concern that, despite the three reminders sent to it, the State party has not provided any observations on the admissibility or merits of the communication. The Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention. 17 8 See the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee concerning its interpretation of article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, for example, communications No. 1781/2008, Berzig v. Algeria, Views adopted on 31 October 2011, para. 7.2 and No. 540/1993, Laureano Atachahua v. Peru, Views adopted on 25 March 1996, para. 7.1. GE.13-49959