which it stated that it was “extremely concerned over the numerous accounts of the use of torture by the State police forces that it has received from nongovernmental organizations” (A/54/44, para. 46) and “gravely concerned over the lack of sufficient investigation, prosecution and punishment by the competent authorities … of suspected torturers or those breaching article 16 of the Convention, as well as with the insufficient reaction to the complaints of such abused persons, resulting in the de facto impunity of the perpetrators of acts of torture” (ibid., para. 47). (c) There is a difference between the statement made on 13 February 1995 by one of the three police officers allegedly responsible for the death of the alleged victim according to which the Police Department had been called for a person who had committed suicide and the statements made by another of the above-mentioned police officers, as well as by two other police officers and the witness D. Markovic, according to which the Police Department had been called for a person who might jump from the roof of a building; (d) The police did not immediately inform the investigating judge on duty of the incident in order for him to oversee the on-site investigation in compliance with article 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the State party. Issues and proceedings before the Committee [8.1] The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. It regrets in this regard that the State party has only provided the Committee with a different account of the event, and notes that more precise information concerning the conduct of the investigation was necessary, including an explanation of why a new autopsy was not carried out. [8.5] Moreover, the Committee is especially concerned by the fact that the doctor who carried out the autopsy admitted in a statement dated 18 July 1995 that he was not a specialist in forensic medicine. [8.6] Noting the above elements, the Committee considers that the investigation that was conducted by the State party’s authorities was neither effective nor thorough. A proper investigation would indeed have entailed an exhumation and a new autopsy, which would in turn have allowed the cause of death to be medically established with a satisfactory degree of certainty. [8.2] It also notes that the author of the communication claims that the State party has violated articles 2, 12, 13, 14 and 16 of the Convention. [8.3] With regard to articles 2 and 16, the Committee first considers that it does not fall under its mandate to assess the guilt of persons who have allegedly committed acts of torture or police brutality. Its competence is limited to considering whether the State party has failed to comply with any of the provisions of the Convention. In the present case, the Committee will therefore not pronounce itself on the existence of torture or illtreatment. [8.7] Moreover, the Committee notes that six years have elapsed since the incident took place. The State party has had ample time to conduct a proper investigation. [8.8] In the circumstances, the Committee finds that the State party has violated its obligations under articles 12 and 13 of the Convention to investigate promptly and effectively allegations of torture or severe police brutality. [8.4] With regard to articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the Committee notes the following elements, on which both parties have been able to submit observations: [8.9] With regard to allegations of a violation of article 14, the Committee finds that in the absence of proper criminal investigation, it is not possible to determine whether the rights to compensation of the alleged victim or his family have been violated. Such an assessment can only be made after the conclusion of proper investigations. The Committee therefore urges the State party to carry out such investigations without delay. (a) There are apparent differences and inconsistencies between the statement made on 18 August 1995 by the doctor who came with the ambulance as to the premise of the cause of death of the alleged victim, the autopsy report of 13 February 1995 and the report made on 20 March 1995 by two forensic experts at the request of the parents of the alleged victim; [9.] In pursuance of rule 111, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the Committee urges the State party to provide the author of the communication with an appropriate remedy, and to inform it, within 90 days from the date of the transmittal of this decision, of the steps it has taken in response to the observations made above. (b) Although the investigating judge in charge of the case when the parents of the alleged victim proceeded in the capacity of private prosecutor stated that the autopsy “had not been performed in line with all the rules of forensic medicine”, there was no order of exhumation of the body for a new forensic examination; 69