CAT/C/60/D/612/2014 assistance for persons of limited means; and the excessive use of pretrial detention in the absence of regular reviews of its legality and of any limit on its total duration (see CAT/C/BDI/CO/2, para. 10). The Committee observes that the complainant in this case appears to have been deprived of any form of judicial oversight. In the absence of any evidence from the State party that it did supervise the complainant’s detention, the Committee finds that the State party has violated article 11 of the Convention. 6 7.8 Regarding articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the Committee reiterates its preliminary observations (see para. 6.2) and takes note of the undisputed facts, that notwithstanding the registration of two successive complaints in 2011, i.e., a judicial investigation procedure and a collective complaint against the Muyinga deputy commissioner addressing the same acts, no prosecution has been initiated, despite the fact that the complainant reinstated his claims in September 2013. The State party has challenged the application to the Committee by arguing that the complainant “dropped” his complaint in the domestic courts, but it has not provided any explanation for such a delay. The Committee considers that such a long delay is clearly in breach of 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. By failing to meet this obligation, the State party also failed to fulfil its responsibility under article 13 of the Convention to guarantee the right of the complainant to lodge a complaint, which presupposes that the authorities provide a satisfactory response to such a complaint by launching a prompt and impartial investigation.7 7.9 With regard to article 14 of the Convention, the Committee has taken note of the complainant’s claim that he has not benefited from any form of rehabilitation to ensure that he recovers as fully as possible. The Committee recalls that article 14 not only recognizes the right to fair and adequate compensation but also requires States parties to ensure that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress. The Committee concludes that the State party has breached its obligations under article 14 of the Convention. 7.10 With regard to article 15, the Committee has taken note of the complainant’s claim that the judicial proceedings initiated against him and his subsequent conviction on 3 January 2012 for participation in armed gangs and for State security offences (charges for which he was subsequently acquitted) were based on confessions that were extracted under torture on 23 April 2011. The State party has provided no argument to counter this claim. The Committee recalls that the generality of the terms of article 15 of the Convention derives from the absolute nature of the prohibition of torture and therefore implies an obligation for any State party to verify that statements included in proceedings under its jurisdiction have not been made under torture.8 The Committee notes that the complainant on numerous occasions brought to the attention of the judicial authorities the ill-treatment to which he was subjected, without success. The State party, which does not refute any of the complainant’s claims, was under an obligation to verify the substance of the author’s claims that his confessions had been obtained under torture. By not carrying out such verification and by using those confessions in the judicial proceedings against the complainant, in which he was eventually acquitted, the State party violated its obligations under article 15 of the Convention. 8. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 2 (1), read in conjunction with article 1, and of articles 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Convention. 9. The Committee urges the State party to: (a) complete the investigation that had been initiated on the incidents in question, with a view to bringing to justice all those responsible for the treatment inflicted upon the complainant; (b) provide the complainant with appropriate reparation, including measures of compensation for the material and 6 7 8 GE.17-09955 See, for example, Gahungu v. Burundi, para. 7.7. Ibid., para. 7.8. See communication No. 419/2010, Ktiti v. Morocco, decision adopted on 26 May 2011, para. 8.8; communication No. 193/2001, P.E. v. France, decision adopted on 21 November 2002, para. 6.3; and Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.7. 9