the State party places the burden of proof on the victim alone, even though the supporting evidence, such as legal files, registers of police custody and visits, and so on, is in the sole hands of the State party and unavailable to the complainant. Referring to European case law,p the complainant points out that the European Court and Commission call on States parties, in the case of allegations of torture or ill-treatment, to conduct an effective investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment and not to content themselves with citing the theoretical arsenal of options available to the victim to lodge a complaint. Consideration of the merits 10.1The Committee examined the complaint, taking due account of all the information provided to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 10.2The Committee took note of the State party’s observations of 3 April 2003 challenging the admissibility of the complaint. It notes that the points raised by the State party are not such as to prompt reconsideration of the Committee’s decision on admissibility, notably owing to the lack of new or additional information from the State party on the matter of investigations voluntarily carried out by the State party (see paragraph 7.2). The Committee therefore does not consider that it should review its decision on admissibility. 10.3The Committee therefore proceeds to examine the merits of the complaint, and notes that the complainant alleges violations by the State party of article 1, article 2, paragraph 1, article 4, article 5, article 11, article 12, article 13, article 14, article 15 and article 16 of the Convention. 10.4The Committee notes that article 12 of the Convention places an obligation on the authorities to proceed automatically to a prompt and impartial investigation whenever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture or ill-treatment has been committed, no special importance being attached to the grounds for the suspicion.q 10.5The Committee notes that the complainant maintains that in 1987 he complained to the examining magistrate of acts of torture inflicted on him and requested a medical examination in that regard, to no avail. The Committee also notes that the State party acknowledges that the examining magistrate rejected the complainant’s request for a medical examination on the grounds that he displayed no obvious traces of violence. The Committee considers that the State party’s reply referring to the lack of obvious traces of violence does not necessarily constitute a response to the complaint of acts of torture, which under the definition of torture set out in article 1 of the Convention give rise to “severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental” and may leave non-obvious but real traces of violence. In that regard, the Committee notes the certificate produced by the complainant reporting a neuropsychiatric disorder. Lastly, the Committee takes note of the detailed and substantiated information provided by the complainant regarding the hunger strikes he carried out while in prison from 1987 to 1997, on at least 15 occasions, for periods of between 5 and 28 days, in protest at the treatment he had suffered. The Committee notes that the State party did not comment on this information. The Committee considers that these elements, taken together, should have been enough to trigger an investigation, which was not held, in breach of the obligation to proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation under article 12 of the Convention. 10.6The Committee also observes that article 13 of the Convention does not require either the formal lodging of a complaint of torture under the procedure laid down in national law or an express statement of intent to institute and sustain a criminal action arising from the offence, and that it is enough for the victim simply to bring the facts to the attention of an authority of the State for the latter to be obliged to consider it a tacit but unequivocal expression of the victim’s wish that the facts should be promptly and impartially investigated, as prescribed by this article of the Convention.r 10.7The Committee notes, as already indicated, that the complainant explains that he did complain to the examining magistrate of the treatment inflicted on him, and resorted to hunger strikes in protest at the conditions imposed on him. Yet notwithstanding the jurisprudence under article 13 of the Convention, the Committee notes the State party’s position maintaining that the complainant should have made formal use of domestic remedies in order to lodge his complaint, for example by presenting to the court a certificate proving that a complaint had been lodged with the office of the public prosecutor, or displaying obvious traces of torture or ill-treatment, or submitting a medical report. On this latter point, to which the Committee wishes to draw its attention, it is clear that the complainant maintains that his request for a medical check was denied, and that the State party justifies this decision by citing the lack of obvious traces of violence. The Committee points out that this reply on the part of the State party does not necessarily answer the complainant’s precise allegation of acts of torture which left actual traces, particularly of a neuropsychiatric nature. Finally, the Committee refers to its consideration of the report submitted by Tunisia in 1997, at which time it recommended that the State party should arrange for medical examinations to be organized systematically when allegations of abuse were made. 10.8In the light of its practice relating to article 13 and the observations set out above, the Committee considers that the breaches enumerated are incompatible with the obligation stipulated in article 13 to proceed to a prompt investigation. 10.9Finally, the Committee considers that there are insufficient elements to make a finding on the alleged violation of other provisions of the Convention raised by the complainant at the time of adoption of this decision. 11.The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 12.Pursuant to rule 112, paragraph 5 of its rules of procedure, the Committee urges the State party to conduct an investigation into the complainant’s allegations of torture and ill-treatment, 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 views expressed above. Notes Communication No. 196/2002