in the instant case. Civil and/or administrative remedies do not provide sufficient redress in this case. 3.8 The complainants further contend that the acts of violence occurred with the “consent or acquiescence” of the police whose duty under the law was to secure their safety and afford them protection. 3.3 The complainants note further that the authorities had the obligation to investigate, or at least to continue their investigation if they considered the available evidence insufficient. Moreover, even though they acknowledge that they have never filed a criminal complaint against individuals responsible for the pogrom, they contend that both the police and the prosecuting authorities were sufficiently aware of the facts to initiate and conduct the investigation ex officio. The complainants therefore conclude that there is no effective remedy. 3.9 The complainants then allege a violation of article 12 read alone or, if the acts committed do not amount to torture, taken together with article 16, paragraph 1, because the authorities failed to conduct a prompt, impartial, and comprehensive investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible. Considering the jurisprudence of the Committee against Torture, it is submitted that the State party had the obligation to conduct “not just any investigation” but a proper investigation, even in the absence of the formal submission of a complaint, since they were in possession of abundant evidence.2 The complainants further suggest that the impartiality of the same investigation depends on the level of independence of the body conducting it. In this case, it is alleged that the level of independence of the investigative magistrate was not sufficient. 3.4 The complainants also note that since there is no effective remedy in respect of the alleged breach of the Convention, the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies should be dealt with together with the merits of the case since there is a claim of violation of articles 13 and 14 of the Convention. 3.5 Referring to a number of excerpts from NGO and governmental sources, the complainants first request that the complaint be considered taking into account the situation of the Roma in Yugoslavia as victims of systematic police brutality and dire human rights situation in general. 3.10 The complainants finally allege a violation of article 13 read alone and/or taken together with article 16, paragraph 1, because “their right to complain and to have [their] case promptly and impartially examined by [the] competent authorities” was violated. They also allege a violation of article 14 read alone and/or taken together with article 16, paragraph 1, because of the absence of redress and of fair and adequate compensation. 3.6 The complainants allege that Yugoslav authorities have violated the Convention under either article 2, paragraph 1, read in conjunction with article 1, because, during the events described previously, the police stood by and watched as the events unfolded, or article 16, paragraph 1, for the same reasons. In this regard, the complainants consider that the particularly vulnerable character of the Roma minority has to be taken into account in assessing the level of ill-treatment that has been committed. They suggest that “a given level of physical abuse is more likely to constitute ‘degrading or inhuman treatment or punishment’ when motivated by racial animus”. State party’s admissibility observations 4. In a submission dated 9 November 1998, the State party contended that the complaint was inadmissible because the case had been conducted according to the Yugoslavian legislation and because all available legal remedies had not been exhausted. Comments by the complainants 5. In a submission dated 20 September 2000, the complainants reiterated their main arguments with regard to the admissibility of the complaint and underlined that the State party had not explained what domestic remedies would still be available which the complainants should still exhaust. In addition, they consider that since the State party has failed to put forward any other objections in that respect, it has in effect waived its right to contest other admissibility criteria. 3.7 With regard to the fact that the acts have mostly been committed by non-State actors, the complainants rely on a review of international jurisprudence on the principle of “due diligence” and remind the current state of international law with regard to “positive” obligations that are incumbent on States. They submit that the purpose of the provisions of the Convention is not limited to negative obligations for States parties but include positive steps that have to be taken in order to avoid that torture and other related acts are committed by private persons. Admissibility decision 6. At its twenty-fifth session, the Committee considered the admissibility of the complaint. The 2 September 1997; X and Y v. Netherlands, 8 EHRR 235 (1985), paras. 21–30. See Encarnación Blanco Abad v. Spain, para. 8.2; Henri Unai Parot v. Spain, 2 May 1995, CAT/C/14/D/6/1990. 81