CAT/C/41/D/257/2004 Page 8 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of the merits 9.1 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. 9.2 The Committee notes the claim that the complainant was subjected to torture, as defined by article 1, paragraph 1, and/or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as defined by article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention. It notes that the exact circumstances of the arrest and intensity of the force used against the complainant are disputed by the parties but that the medical reports were assessed by the domestic courts as demonstrating a “slight physical injury” to the complainant. It observes that, according to the Decision of 23 September 2003, the doctor who examined the complainant in prison immediately after his arrest testified to having found no bruising on the complainant’s face, head or arms, which appears to be contradicted by the medical reports subsequently produced. The State party adopts the courts’ interpretation of the medical reports that the injuries caused were slight and arose from the lawful use of necessary force, in accordance with article 78, paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Law on the Ministry of the Interior. 9.3 From a review of the medical reports themselves, the Committee observes that the complainant suffered multiple bruising on various external parts of his body, to the extent that the injuries inflicted caused bruising to his kidneys and blood in his urine. In addition, the forensic medical report, of 12 July 2003, ordered by the State party’s authorities themselves for the purposes of the investigation, attests to the injuries described in the two earlier medical reports and gives the view that these injuries could have arisen at the time of and in the manner described by the complainant. It also observes that the medical reports themselves do not refer to a “slight physical injury” but that this is the domestic court’s interpretation. While recognizing that pain and suffering may arise from a lawful arrest of an uncooperative and/or violent individual, the Committee considers that the use of force in such circumstances should be limited to what is necessary and proportionate. The State party argues that the force used was “necessary”, and states that the complainant had to be handcuffed, however it does not describe the type of force used nor say whether and/or how it was proportionate, i.e how the intensity of the force used was necessary in the particular circumstances of the case. The Committee considers the complainant’s injuries too great to correspond to the use of proportionate force by two police officers, particularly as it would appear that the complainant was unarmed. It cannot agree with the domestic courts’ interpretation that the complainant suffered from a “slight physical injury”, as a result of the force inflicted upon him. While noting, on the basis of the evidence provided, that the injuries inflicted do not appear to amount to “severe pain and suffering”, within the meaning of article 1, paragraph 1, it does consider that the treatment of the complainant by the police officials amounts to acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment within the terms of article 16 of the Convention. 9.4 As to the claim of a violation of article 12, while noting that the State party did conduct a prompt investigation into the incident in question, an investigation in itself is not sufficient to demonstrate the State party’s conformity with its obligations under this provision if it can be