CAT/C/52/D/497/2012 cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, soon disappear.14 In this case a preliminary investigation was started after more than a month from the reported facts of torture on 17 and 18 July 2008. This investigation relied heavily on the testimony of the alleged perpetrators – police officers, who denied any involvement in the torture, but attached no or little weight to the complainant’s and his relatives’ statements. In this regard, the Committee notes that, according to the information on file, the complainant himself was never questioned by any officials regarding his ill-treatment; no medical-forensic examination was performed on him. Consequently, it was refused to initiate criminal proceedings and no criminal charges were brought against the alleged perpetrators, due to lack of evidence. As a result, no remedy could be provided to the complainant. 8.8 In these circumstances and in light of the materials before it, the Committee concludes that the State party has failed to comply with its obligation to carry out a prompt and impartial investigation into the allegations of torture or to ensure the complainant’s right to complain and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by the competent authorities, in violation of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention. 8.9 With regard to the alleged violation of article 14 of the Convention, the Committee notes that it is uncontested that the absence of criminal proceedings deprived the complainant of the possibility of filing a civil suit for compensation since the right to compensation for torture arises only after conviction of those responsible by a criminal court in the State party. The Committee recalls that article 14 of the Convention recognizes not only the right to a fair and adequate compensation, but also requires States parties to ensure that victims of torture obtain redress. The redress should cover all the harm suffered by the victim, including restitution, compensation, rehabilitation of the victim and measures to guarantee that there is no recurrence of the violations, while always bearing in mind the circumstances of each case.15 The Committee considers that, notwithstanding the evidentiary benefits to victims afforded by a criminal investigation, civil proceedings and victims’ claims for reparation should not be dependent on the conclusion of a criminal proceeding. It considers that compensation should not be delayed until establishment of criminal liability. Civil proceedings should be available independently of criminal proceedings and necessary legislation and institutions for such civil procedures should be in place. If criminal proceedings are required under domestic law to take place before civil compensation can be sought, then the absence or delay of those criminal proceedings constitute a failure on behalf of the State party to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. The Committee emphasizes that disciplinary or administrative remedies without access to effective judicial review cannot be deemed to constitute adequate redress in the context of article 14. In light of this, and in the circumstances of the present case, the Committee concludes that the State party is also in breach of its obligations under article 14 of the Convention.16 8.10 As to the alleged violation of article 15 of the Convention, the Committee observes that the broad scope of the prohibition in article 15 of the Convention, proscribing the invocation of any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture as evidence “in any proceedings”, is a function of the absolute nature of the prohibition of torture and it implies an obligation for States parties to ascertain whether or not statements admitted as evidence in any proceedings for which it has jurisdiction have been made as a 14 15 16 Communication No. 59/1996 (CAT/C/20/D/59/1996), Encarnación Blanco Abad v. Spain, decision of 14 May 1998, para. 8.2. See communication No. 269/2005 (CAT/C/39/D/269/2005), Ali Ben Salem v. Tunisia, decision of 7 November 2007, para. 16.8. See, e.g., communication No. 207/2002 (CAT/C/33/D/207/2002), Dimitrijevic v. Serbia and Montenegro, decision of 24 November 2004, para. 5.5. 13