CAT/C/53/D/495/2012 article 12 requires that the investigation should be prompt, impartial and effective, promptness being essential both to ensure that the victim cannot continue to be subjected to such acts and because, in general, unless the methods employed have permanent or serious effects, the physical traces of torture, and especially of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, soon disappear.11 13.3 The Committee recalls that an investigation in itself is not sufficient to demonstrate the State party’s conformity with its obligations under article 12 of the Convention if it can be shown not to have been conducted impartially.12 In that respect, it notes that the investigation was entrusted to the police department (the Department of Internal Security of the Department of Internal Affairs of Kostanay District ) where the alleged torture was said to have been committed and thereafter to the hierarchically superior body (Department of Internal Security of the Mendykara Regional Department of Internal Affairs). 13.4 The Committee notes that the complainant reported the acts of torture within days after the events, that his lawyer filed a formal complaint on 26 September 2006, that a preliminary inquiry was initiated on an unspecified date and that it resulted in a refusal to open a criminal investigation, with a decision of an investigator on 23 November 2006. Thereafter, following the complainant’s son’s appeals, the investigation was repeatedly restarted and closed several times by different prosecutorial and investigative bodies. It resulted in the filing of charges against Mr. P., who passed away during the proceedings, and ultimately was closed with no criminal responsibility being attributed to police officers due to lack of evidence. The Committee notes that a medical examination of the complainant was conducted on 18 September 2006. It also notes that the investigation relied heavily on the testimony of the police officers, but that other participants in the events of 16 September 2006, as well as the medical personnel who first examined the alleged victims, had also been questioned. 13.5 While it remains concerned that that preliminary examinations of complaints of torture and ill-treatment by police officers are undertaken by the Department of Internal Security, which is under the same chain of command as the regular police force, the Committee observes that the investigation was followed by prosecutor’s offices, which on several occasions revoked the decisions of the investigators to close the investigation and returned the case for additional investigation. In the particular circumstances of this case, the Committee finds that the complainant has failed to substantiate that the investigation conducted into the torture allegations of her son was not efficient and impartial. Accordingly, based on the materials before it, the Committee cannot conclude that the State party has failed to comply with its obligation to carry out a prompt, impartial and effective investigation into the allegations of torture of the complainant’s son. 14. In the absence of further pertinent information on file, the Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concludes that the State party did not violate the rules set out in articles 12 and 13 of the Convention and that, in the light of the information submitted to the Committee, no finding of any violation of any other provision of the Convention can be made. 11 12 Communication No. 59/1996, Blanco Abad v. Spain, Views adopted on 14 May 1998, para. 8.2. See communication No. 257/2004, Keremedchiev v. Bulgaria, decision adopted on 11 November 2008, para. 9.4. 9