CAT/C/52/D/497/2012 form of medical documentation was presented by the State party to disprove the complainant’s allegations concerning the inflicted injuries, as well as, in light of the information and documents on file, the Committee concludes in the present case that due weight must be given to the complainant’s allegations.11 The Committee further concludes that the facts as presented reveal that the manner in which the complainant was treated at the early stages of his detention by police, who carried out the investigation during that time and resulted in the complainant’s forced confessions, in the absence of a lawyer, amount to a violation, by the State party, of article 1 of the Convention, read together with article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention, due to the authorities’ failure to prevent and punish acts of torture. 8.5 The Committee notes that the complainant claims that no prompt, impartial or effective investigation has been carried out into his torture allegations and that those responsible have not been prosecuted, in violation of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention. The Committee notes that, although the complainant reported the acts of torture shortly after their occurrence when a prosecutor of the Rudny City Prosecutor’s Office visited the detention facility where the complainant was held, a preliminary inquiry was initiated only after approximately one month, when the Rudny City Prosecutor’s Office informed the complainant’s mother that her complaint was forwarded to the RDIA for examination. Furthermore, both the RDIA and the CDIA repeatedly refused to initiate criminal proceedings, due to lack of evidence. The complainant also claims that, in fact, no appropriate investigation was carried out in his case, since police officers, i.e. interested persons, failed to conduct a comprehensive investigation. In addition, the investigation into his allegations lasted for about two and a half years and was never conducted by an independent authority. His complaints concerning the facts of torture before the courts were also disregarded; no investigation was initiated and no criminal responsibility was attributed to those responsible. 8.6 The Committee recalls that an investigation in itself is not sufficient to demonstrate the State party’s compliance with its obligations under article 12 of the Convention if it can be shown not to have been conducted impartially.12 In this respect, it notes that in this case, the investigation was entrusted to the Criminal Department of the Department of Internal Affairs of Rudny City (CDIA) and the Department of Internal Security of the Department of Internal Affairs of the Kostanai Region (RDIA), i.e. the same institution where the alleged torture had been committed and an institution under the same chain of command. In this context, the Committee recalls its concern that preliminary examinations of complaints of torture and ill-treatment by police officers are undertaken by the Department of Internal Security, which is under the same chain of command as the regular police force, and consequently do not lead to impartial examinations.13 8.7 The Committee further recalls that article 12 requires that the investigation should be prompt and impartial, promptness being essential both to ensure that the victim cannot continue to be subjected to such acts and also because in general, unless the methods employed have permanent or serious effects, the physical traces of torture, and especially of 11 12 13 12 See for example communication No. 207/2002 (CAT/C/33/D/207/2002), Dimitrijevic v. Serbia and Montenegro, decision of 24 November 2004, para. 5.3; communication No. 172/2000 (CAT/C/35/D/172/2000), Dimitrijevic v. Serbia and Montenegro, decision of 16 November 2005, para. 7.1. See communication No. 257/2004 (CAT/C/41/D/257/2004), Kostadin Nikolov Keremedchiev v. Bulgaria, decision of 11 November 2008, para. 9.4. See Concluding observations regarding the second periodic report of Kazakhstan, United Nations Document CAT/C/KAZ/CO/2, 12 December 2008, para. 24.