although the police report stated 9.40 a.m. as the time of death; and (c) that it was unreasonable to expect that anyone would risk his life by trying to climb from the tenth to the ninth floor of a high-rise, only secured by some electric cables, break the window and enter the apartment on the ninth floor, only in order to find himself in the same situation as before, assuming that the police had plenty of time to reach the (presumably locked) door of the apartment on the ninth floor before this could be opened from inside. informed the Committee that it “accepts the individual complaint N° 174/2000”. 4.2 After consultations with the Secretariat, the State party, on 20 October 2003, explained that “the acceptance”, in its note verbale of 14 January 2003, “implies that Serbia and Montenegro recognizes the competence of the Committee against Torture to consider the aforementioned [complaint], but not the responsibility of the State concerning the individual [complaint] in question.” 4.3 At the same time, the State party advised the Committee that it was still in the process of collecting data from the relevant authorities in order to prepare its observations on the merits of the complaint. No such information has been received to date. 3.3 The complainants claim that the dismissal of all their motions to initiate criminal proceedings, and of their subsequent appeals, raises doubts about the impartiality of the Serbian authorities’ investigation into N.N.’s death and alleged prior torture, thus disclosing a violation of article 13 of the Convention. Thus, the investigating judge had never initiated an investigation or even heard the complainants; none of the witnesses named by the complainants’ lawyer was ever heard or cross-examined. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 5. Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture 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, paragraphs 5 (a) and (b), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, and that the complainants have exhausted all available domestic remedies. It therefore considers that the complainant’s claims under articles 12, 13 and 14 of the Convention are admissible and proceeds to their examination on the merits. 3.4 The complainants submit an amicus curiae by Human Rights Watch/Helsinki dated 24 November 1997, which states that the “[i]nconsistencies in the various police and medical reports could only be adequately addressed in a court of law.” 3.5 For the complainants, the State party’s failure to investigate the circumstances of their son’s death de facto prevents them from exercising their right to a fair and adequate compensation, guaranteed in article 14 of the Convention, as the legal successors of their son and as indirect victims of the acts of torture that he had presumably been subjected to. They refer to a similar case, in which the European Court of Human Rights found that the disappearance of the applicant’s son amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of article 3 of the European Convention, and awarded £15,000 compensation for the disappeared son’s pain and suffering and an additional £20,000 for the applicants’ own anguish and distress.6 6.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all information made available to it, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. It regrets that the State party has not submitted any observations on the substance of the complaint and observes that, in the absence of any such observations, due weight must be given to the complainants’ allegations, to the extent that they are substantiated. 3.6 The complainants submit that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, and that they have exhausted all available domestic remedies. 6.2 The Committee must decide, pursuant to article 12 of the Convention, whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that an act of torture has been committed against the complainants’ son prior to his death and, if so, whether the State party’s authorities complied with their obligation to proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation. Committee’s request for State party’s observations 4.1 By notes verbales of 2 November 2000, 19 April 2002 and 12 December 2002, the Committee requested the State party to submit its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. On 14 January 2003, the State party 6.3 The Committee considers that the following elements cast doubts on the sequence of events leading to the death of the complainants’ son, as established by the State party’s authorities: (a) The fact that the autopsy report states that the injuries “were inflicted with a brandished, blunt and heavy object,” thus suggesting that N.N. had 6 See European Court of Human Rights, Kurt v. Turkey, Judgement of 25 May 1998. 97