CAT/C/53/D/514/2012 pain in the lumbar region as a result of the ill-treatment he suffered and has had to have two operations on his nose; he also says that the torture has had lasting consequences, including the irreversible loss of his sense of smell. However, he has not benefited from rehabilitation measures. Although it welcomes the State party’s statement of intent to meet its obligations of rehabilitation and redress, the Committee is of the opinion that the failure to conduct a thorough, prompt and impartial investigation denied the complainant any possibility of exercising his right to redress, as provided for in article 14 of the Convention. 8.7 With regard to article 15, the Committee has noted the complainant’s claim that the judicial proceedings against him for an attempted coup d’état were brought on the basis of confessions that were extracted from him under torture, as certified by a medical examination. The State party has provided no argument to counter this claim. The Committee recalls that the general nature of the provisions of article 15 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 a proceeding under its jurisdiction were not made under torture.24 In this case, the Committee notes that, according to the complainant, the statements that he signed under torture served as the grounds for the charges against him and as justification for keeping him in detention for more than 5 months (from 1 August 2006 to 16 January 2007); that the ill-treatment was confirmed in an expert examination by a government doctor with a mandate from the investigating judge; that the complainant was acquitted on 15 January 2007 for lack of material evidence (para. 2.15); and that, through his counsel, he has disputed the probative value of the confession signed under torture at each stage of the proceedings against him, without success. The Committee notes that the State party has neither refuted any of these allegations nor included any information on this question in its observations to the Committee. The Committee considers that the State party was under an obligation to verify the substance of the author’s claims that his confessions had been obtained under torture, and that 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. 8.8 Regarding the complaint under article 16, the Committee has taken note of the complainant’s claim that he was detained from 1 to 9 August 2006 in a cramped cell at Intelligence Service headquarters which he shared with 16 other prisoners, in extremely insanitary conditions, and that he was refused access to a doctor, despite his request and his worrying state of health. He further claims that on 9 September 2006 he was transferred to Mpimba prison, which was insanitary and overcrowded. The manifest absence of any mechanism for monitoring the cells at Intelligence Service headquarters and Mpimba prison, where the complainant was detained, without doubt increased the risk of his being subjected to acts of torture. In the absence of any relevant information from the State party in this regard, the Committee concludes that the facts reveal a violation by the State party of its obligations under article 16, read in conjunction with article 11, of the Convention. 25 9. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 2 (para. 1), read in conjunction with article 1, and of articles 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, the latter read in conjunction with article 11, of the Convention. 10. Pursuant to rule 118, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the Committee urges the State party to launch an impartial investigation into the incidents in question, with a view to bringing those responsible for the victim’s treatment to justice, and to inform it, within 90 24 25 14 See communication No. 419/2010, Ktiti v. Morocco, decision adopted on 26 May 2011, para. 8.8, and communication No. 193/2001, P.E. v. France, decision adopted on 21 November 2002, para. 6.3. See Ntikarahera v. Burundi, para. 6.6. GE.15-00394