CAT/C/51/D/376/2009 been made known to the family, despite the fact that more than two years have passed since the events took place.13 Assuming that such an investigation was indeed carried out, the complainant questions its impartiality, given that those who would have headed it are themselves perpetrators of, or, at the very least, accomplices to the acts in question. In the end, the complainant doubts whether any investigation was ever conducted at all, since none of the material witnesses has ever testified in any proceeding. The complainant therefore concludes that, given its failure to conduct a genuine, prompt and impartial investigation into the allegations of torture suffered by Mounir Hammouche, the State party has acted in violation of its obligations under article 12 of the Convention. 3.6 With regard to article 13 of the Convention, the complainant argues that the State party should have guaranteed the family of Mounir Hammouche the right to lodge a complaint and to have its case heard promptly and impartially by the appropriate national authorities. As matters stand, the authorities have removed any hope that the victim’s family had of obtaining justice. The prosecutor of Ras El Oued has not taken any action in response to the complaint lodged by the victim’s brother, and the prosecutor of Constantine, also seized of the case, has not shown any diligence in the matter either. In addition, Mounir Hammouche’s family has been denied a copy of the report of the autopsy that was purportedly conducted – obviously a key piece of evidence in elucidating and proving the facts. Furthermore, they have not had access to the results of the investigation that the State claims to have carried out, however partial or incomplete that investigation might be. By failing to inform the family of the results of the investigation, the State party has blocked any criminal action that the family could, in theory, have brought under the Algerian Code of Criminal Procedure. In so doing, the State party has acted in violation of article 13 of the Convention.14 3.7 The complainant also invokes article 14 of the Convention, noting that, by depriving Mounir Hammouche’s family of the opportunity to bring legal action under criminal law, the State party has deprived it of a legal means of obtaining compensation for serious crimes such as torture. In addition, the inaction of the prosecution service has nullified the family’s chances of obtaining redress through a civil action for damages, which are brought separately from criminal proceedings, given the stipulation in the Algerian Code of Criminal Procedure that “a judgement in a civil action shall be deferred until the final determination of a criminal action”.15 A public prosecutor who refuses to conduct an investigation therefore precludes effective access to civil proceedings. The complainant emphasizes, furthermore, that the State party’s obligation to provide redress includes, but is not limited to, compensation for damages suffered, since it must also include the adoption of measures aimed at non-repetition of the offences, in particular by imposing penalties on the guilty parties that are commensurate with the seriousness of their acts. This implies, first and foremost, conducting an investigation and prosecuting those responsible.16 In the case of Mounir Hammouche, the crime perpetrated against him remains unpunished, since 13 14 15 16 GE.13-49959 Today, more than seven years. The complainant refers to communications No. 171/2000, Dimitrov v. Serbia and Montenegro, decision adopted on 3 May 2005, para. 7.2 and No. 172/2000, Dimitrijevic v. Serbia and Montenegro, decision adopted on 16 November 2005, para. 7.3. Order No. 66-155 of 8 June 1966 on the Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 4. The complainant refers in particular to communication No. 212/2002, Urra Guridi v. Spain, decision adopted on 17 May 2005, para. 6.8. This decision is, moreover, in line with the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee (communications No. 563/1993, Andreu v. Colombia, Views adopted on 27 October 1995, para. 8.2 and No. 778/1997, Coronel et al. v. Colombia, Views adopted on 24 October 2002, para. 6.2); and that of the European Court of Human Rights (Assenov and others v. Bulgaria, No. 90/1997/874/1086, 28 October 1998, paras. 102 and 117 and Aksoy v. Turkey, No. 100/1995/606/694, 18 December 1996, para. 90). 7