(c) There is a difference between the statement made on 13 February 1995 by one of the three police officers allegedly responsible for the death of the alleged victim according to which the Police Department had been called for a person who had committed suicide and the statements made by another of the above-mentioned police officers, as well as by two other police officers and the witness D. Markovic, according to which the Police Department had been called for a person who might jump from the roof of a building; (d) The police did not immediately inform the investigating judge on duty of the incident in order for him to oversee the on-site investigation in compliance with article 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the State party. 9.5 Moreover, the Committee is especially concerned by the fact that the doctor who carried out the autopsy admitted in a statement dated 18 July 1995 that he was not a specialist in forensic medicine. 9.6 Noting the above elements, the Committee considers that the investigation that was conducted by the State party's authorities was neither effective nor thorough. A proper investigation would indeed have entailed an exhumation and a new autopsy, which would in turn have allowed the cause of death to be medically established with a satisfactory degree of certainty. 9.7 Moreover, the Committee notes that six years have elapsed since the incident took place. The State party has had ample time to conduct a proper investigation. 9.8 In the circumstances, the Committee finds that the State party has violated its obligations under articles 12 and 13 of the Convention to investigate promptly and effectively allegations of torture or severe police brutality. 9.9 With regard to allegations of a violation of article 14, the Committee finds that in the absence of proper criminal investigation, it is not possible to determine whether the rights to compensation of the alleged victim or his family have been violated. Such an assessment can only be made after the conclusion of proper investigations. The Committee therefore urges the State party to carry out such investigations without delay. 10. In pursuance of rule 111, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the Committee urges the State party to provide the author of the communication with an appropriate remedy, and to inform it, within 90 days from the date of the transmittal of this decision, of the steps it has taken in response to the observations made above.