investigating judge with respect to his injuries, and photographs of his injuries provided by the complainant. It observes that the State party has not contested the facts as presented by the complainant, which took place more than seven years ago, and observes that the medical report prepared after the examination of the complainant and pursuant to an order of the Novi Sad District Court Judge, has not been integrated into the complaint file and could not be consulted by the complainant or his counsel. In the circumstances, the Committee concludes that due weight must be given to the complainant’s allegations and that the facts, as submitted, constitute torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. obligation, under article 12 of the Convention, to carry out a prompt and impartial investigation whenever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed. The State party also failed to comply with its obligation, under article 13, to ensure the complainant’s right to complain and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by the competent authorities. 7.4 As for the alleged violation of article 14 of the Convention, the Committee notes the complainant’s allegations that the absence of criminal proceedings deprived him of the possibility of filing a civil suit for compensation. In view of the fact that the State party has not contested this allegation and given the passage of time since the complainant initiated legal proceedings at the domestic level, the Committee concludes that the State party has also violated its obligations under article 14 of the Convention in the present case. 7.2 In light of the above finding of a violation of article 1 of the Convention, the Committee need not consider whether there was a violation of article 16, paragraph 1, as the treatment suffered by the complainant under article 1 exceeds the treatment encompassed in article 16 of the Convention. 8. The Committee, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of articles 2, paragraph 1, in connection with article 1; 12; 13; and 14 of the Convention against Torture. 7.3 Concerning the alleged violation of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the Committee notes that the public prosecutor never informed the complainant whether an investigation was being or had been conducted after the criminal complaint was filed on 24 November 1997. It also notes that the failure to inform the complainant of the results of such investigation, if any, effectively prevented him from pursuing a “private prosecution” of his case. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the State party has failed to comply with its 9. The Committee urges the State party to prosecute those responsible for the violations found and to provide compensation to the complainant, in accordance with rule 112, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, to inform it, within 90 days from the date of the transmittal of this decision, of the steps taken in response to the Views expressed above. Communication N° 174/2000 Submitted by: Mr. Slobodan Nikoliü; Mrs. Ljiljana Nikoliü Alleged victims: The complainants’ son, N.N. (deceased); the complainants State party: Serbia and Montenegro Date of adoption of Views: 24 November 2005 Subject matter: police arrest with violence resulting in death of victim the State party’s alleged failure to proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation of the circumstances of their son’s death constitutes a violation by Serbia and Montenegro of articles 12, 13 and 14 of the Convention. The complainants are represented by counsel. Procedural issue: none Substantive issues: failure promptly to investigate allegations of torture; right to complain; right to compensation The facts as submitted by the complainants Articles of the Convention: 12, 13, 14 2.1 On 19 April 1994, the complainants’ son, N.N., born on 19 April 1972, died in Belgrade. The post-mortem examination of his corpse was carried out on 25 April 1994 by a medical team of the Institute for Forensic Medicine of the Faculty of 1. The complainants are Mr. Slobodan Nikoliü and his wife, Mrs. Ljiljana Nikoliü, nationals of Serbia and Montenegro, born on 20 December 1947 and on 5 August 1951, respectively. They claim that 92