Issues and proceedings before the Committee The State party’s authorities have not even identified the police officer concerned.7 Consideration of admissibility 3.5 Article 14 is also said to be violated, since the complainant was denied a criminal remedy and has thus been barred from obtaining fair and adequate compensation in a civil lawsuit. The complainant explains that under domestic law, two different procedures exist, through which compensation for criminal offences may be pursued: by criminal proceedings under article 103 of the CPC following criminal proceedings, or/and by civil action for damages under articles 154 and 200 of the Law on Obligations. The first avenue was not an option, as no criminal proceedings were instituted and the second was not availed of by the complainant, as it is the practice of the State party’s courts to suspend civil proceedings for damages arising from criminal offences until prior completion of the respective criminal proceedings. Even if the complainant had attempted to avail of this recourse, he would have been prevented from pursuing it, as under articles 186 and 106 of the Civil Procedure Code he would have to identify the name of the respondent. Since the complainant to date remains unaware of the name of the officer against whom he is claiming violations of his rights the institution of a civil action would have been impossible. 6.1 The Committee notes the State party’s failure to provide information with regard to the admissibility or merits of the complaint. In the circumstances, the Committee, acting under rule 109, paragraph 7, of its rules of procedure, is obliged to consider the admissibility and the merits of the complaint in the light of the available information, due weight being given to the complainant’s allegations to the extent that they have been sufficiently substantiated. 6.2 Before considering any claim contained in a complaint, the Committee must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention that the same matter has not been, and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. With respect to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee has taken note of the information provided by the complainant about the criminal complaint, which he filed with the public prosecutor. It considers that the insurmountable procedural impediments faced by the complainant due to the inaction of the competent authorities made recourse to a remedy that may bring effective relief to the complainant highly unlikely. In the absence of pertinent information from the State party, the Committee concludes that in any event, domestic proceedings, if any, have been unreasonably prolonged since the end of November 1997. With reference to article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention and rule 107 of the Committee’s rules of procedure the Committee finds no other obstacle to the admissibility of the complaint. Accordingly, it declares the complaint admissible and proceeds to its examination on the merits. State party’s submission on admissibility and merits and complainant’s comments 4. On 14 January 2003, the State party provided a submission, merely stating that it “accepts” the complaint. Following a request for clarification from the Secretariat, the State party made another submission, on 20 October 2003, in which it states that the “acceptance” of the complaint implied that the State party recognized the competence of the Committee to consider the complaint, “but not the responsibility of the State concerning the complaint in question”. In addition, it submitted that the Ministry on Human and Minority Rights of Serbia and Montenegro is still in the process of collecting data from the relevant authorities of the Republic of Serbia for the purposes of giving a response on the merits. The State party has provided no further information since that date. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The complainant alleges violations by the State party of article 2, paragraph 1, in connection with article 1, and of article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Committee notes in this respect the complainant’s description of the treatment he was subjected to while in detention, which can be characterized as severe pain or suffering intentionally inflicted by public officials for such purposes as obtaining from him information or a confession or punishing him for an act he has committed, or intimidating or coercing him for any reason based on discrimination of any kind in the context of the investigation of a crime. The Committee also notes the observations of the 5. On 25 November 2003, the complainant commented on the State party’s submissions. He submits that by failing seriously to contest the facts and/or his claims, the State party has in effect expressed its tacit acceptance of both.8 7 The complainant refers to communication N° 59/1996, Encarnación Blanco Abad v. Spain, Views adopted on 14 May 1998. 8 In this regard, he refers to decisions of the Human Rights Committee, in particular communication N° 88/1981, Gustavo Raul Larrosa Bequio v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 29 March 1983, para. 10.1. 91