CAT/C/51/D/376/2009 case, Mounir Hammouche was placed in incommunicado detention and was not given the possibility of contacting his family, a defence lawyer or a doctor. The apparent lack of any mechanism to provide oversight of the Territorial Centre for Research and Investigation exposed him to an increased risk of being subjected to acts of torture and, furthermore, deprived him of any possible remedy. The Committee consequently finds a violation of article 2, paragraph 1, read in conjunction with article 1, of the Convention. 6.5 With regard to article 11, the Committee recalls its recommendation to the State party in its concluding observations, in which it urged the State party to provide for the establishment of a national register of prisoners and to guarantee the right of prisoners to have access to a doctor and to communicate with their family.20 In the light of this recommendation and the lack of information provided by the State party on the subject, the Committee can only note that, in the present case, the State party has failed to fulfil its obligations under article 11 of the Convention. 6.6 With regard to articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the Committee has taken note of the allegations of the complainant who, despite what she has been told by the State party, doubts whether the State party carried out any investigation at all, given that none of the witnesses to the events has ever testified in any legal proceeding. The complainant has also asserted that, by failing to inform the family of the results of the investigation that was reportedly conducted, the State party has precluded the possibility of any criminal action being brought by the family. The Committee recalls that, on 23 December 2006, Mounir Hammouche was arrested by DRS agents; that his family received no further news of him until 29 December 2006, when agents identifying themselves as members of the “security services” visited Mounir Hammouche’s home to announce to his family that he had died, claiming that he “had probably committed suicide”; that on that same day, Mounir Hammouche’s body was returned to his family, who detected numerous injuries to his body, in particular a head injury and bruises on his hands and feet; and that the family was denied access to the report of the autopsy that, according to the security services and judicial authorities of the State party, had been carried out. The family took the case first to the public prosecutor of Ras El Oued and then to the chief prosecutor of Constantine, who upheld the theory that the victim had committed suicide, while simultaneously refusing to give the family the report of the autopsy that had supposedly been carried out. The Committee observes that, despite the existence of visible signs of torture on the victim’s body and of statements to the effect that Mounir Hammouche, like his fellow prisoners, had been brutally tortured by DRS agents in the Territorial Centre for Research and Investigation in Constantine, no investigation has been carried out by the State party to shed light on the events leading to the death in custody of Mounir Hammouche, seven years after the events in question. The State party has not submitted any information that would contradict these facts. The Committee considers that so long a delay in initiating an investigation into allegations of torture is patently unjustified and clearly breaches the State party’s obligations under article 12 of the Convention, which requires it to proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed.21 The Committee also recalls that, during its dialogue with the State party in 2008, it had expressed its concern regarding the case of Mounir Hammouche and had reminded the State party of its obligation to launch a prompt and 20 21 10 and the availability of legal remedies and of the right to contest the legality of their detention and treatment (general comment No. 2 (2008), para. 13). CAT/C/DZA/CO/3, para. 5. See, inter alia, communications No. 341/2008, Sahli v. Algeria, decision adopted on 3 June 2011, para. 9.6 and No. 269/2005, Ali Ben Salem v. Tunisia, decision adopted on 7 November 2007, para. 16.7. GE.13-49959