CAT/C/53/D/495/2012 the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 12.2 The Committee notes the complainant’s allegations that the rights of her son under article 1 of the Convention were violated, specifically, that during the pretrial detention he was subjected to ill-treatment, that on various occasions he was deprived of food, water and basic sanitary supplies, and that he was beaten on a daily basis by his cellmates and that those beatings were authorized by the authorities of the detention facility. The Committee, however, observes that the allegations relate to events that took place before the State party made a declaration under article 22 of the Convention and do not appear to have been raised at any point before the domestic authorities. In the circumstances, the Committee finds that the above claims are inadmissible ratione temporis. 12.3 The Committee notes that the State party contests the Committee’s competence ratione temporis on grounds that the alleged torture occurred before Kazakhstan made the declaration under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that a State party’s obligations under the Convention apply from the date of its entry into force for that State party. It can examine alleged violations of the Convention which occurred before a State party’s recognition of the Committee’s competence under article 22 if the effects of those violations continued after the declaration, and if the effects constitute in themselves a violation of the Convention. A continuing violation must be interpreted as an affirmation, after the formulation of the declaration, by act or by clear implication, of the previous violations of the State party. 9 The Committee notes that Kazakhstan made the declaration under article 22 of the Convention on 21 February 2008 and that article 22 does not specify any delay before a declaration made under said article would become effective. The Committee observes that even though the events complained of occurred before that date, the decision of the Prosecutor’s Office of Kostanay to open a criminal investigation into the torture allegations was dated 20 December 2006, and that the above investigation, after being discontinued and reopened several times, lasted until 11 March 2008, when the Prosecutor’s Office of Mendykara District confirmed the decision to discontinue it (see para. 4.3 above), that is, after Kazakhstan made the declaration under article 22 of the Convention. Therefore, the State party’s alleged failure to fulfil its obligations to investigate the complainant’s allegations and to provide her son with redress continued after the State party had recognized the Committee’s competence under article 22 of the Convention. In the circumstances, the Committee is not precluded ratione temporis from considering the complainant’s allegations regarding violations of her son’s rights under articles 12 and 13 of the Convention.10 12.4 With reference to article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention and rule 111 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, the Committee finds no other obstacle to the admissibility of the communication and proceeds to its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 13.1 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. 13.2 The complainant claims that no prompt, impartial and effective investigation has been carried out into the allegations of torture and that those responsible have not been prosecuted, in violation of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that 9 10 8 See communication No. 247/2004, A.A. v. Azerbaijan, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 25 November 2005, para. 6.4. See Gerasimov v. Kazakhstan, para. 11.2.