CAT/C/53/D/514/2012 allegations must be taken fully into account and that the facts as presented constitute torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. 8.3 The complainant also invokes article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention, according to which the State party should have taken “all effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction”. The Committee notes that in this case the complainant was beaten, then detained for a week in Intelligence Service cells without legal grounds and without contact with either defence counsel or a doctor. The Committee recalls its conclusions and recommendations, in which it called on the State party to take legislative, administrative and judicial measures to prevent all acts of torture and all ill-treatment and to take steps, as a matter of urgency, to bring all places of detention under judicial control and to prevent its officials from making arbitrary arrests and engaging in torture. 20 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee finds a violation of article 2, paragraph 1, read in conjunction with article 1 of the Convention. 21 8.4 As to articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the Committee has taken note of the complainant’s claims that he was detained without legal grounds from 1 to 9 August 2006, when he was brought before the public prosecutor and formally charged with involvement in a coup d’état. Notwithstanding the fact that he filed a complaint on 17 August 2006 with the Attorney General’s Office, that the complaint was supported by a medical certificate from a government doctor stating that he had probably been subjected to torture (para. 2.13) and that the facts were widely known and reported by various people, including a Minister of the Government of the State party (paras. 2.19 and 2.20), no investigation has been carried out, more than eight years after the events. The Committee considers that to delay so long before opening an investigation into allegations of torture is clearly unjustified. It also rejects the State party’s argument that the lack of progress in the investigation can be put down to a lack of cooperation on the part of the complainant, who is not in the country. The Committee recalls the State party’s obligation under article 12 of the Convention to proceed automatically to a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed. In this respect, the Committee finds a violation of article 12 of the Convention. 8.5 By failing to meet this obligation, the State party has also failed in its responsibility under article 13 of the Convention to ensure the right of the complainant to lodge a complaint, which presupposes that the authorities will provide a satisfactory response to such a complaint by launching a prompt and impartial investigation. 22 In addition, the Committee notes that the complainant and his family were subjected to threats, and that his lawyer was arrested and imprisoned on 3 August 2006 after reporting the acts of torture inflicted on his client. The State party has not provided any information to refute this part of the communication. The Committee therefore also finds a violation of article 13 of the Convention. 8.6 As to the complainant’s claims under article 14 of the Convention, 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 recalls that redress should cover all the harm suffered by the victim and encompasses, among other measures, restitution, compensation and guarantees of nonrepetition of the violations, taking into account the circumstances of each case. 23 In the present case, the Committee notes the complainant’s claim that he suffers from persistent 20 21 22 23 GE.15-00394 CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 10. See communication No. 503/2012, Ntikarahera v. Burundi, decision adopted on 12 May 2014, para. 6.3. Ibid., para. 6.4. Ibid., para. 6.5. See also Bendib v. Algeria. 13