CAT/C/57/D/551/2013 imprisoned.11 Consequently, the Committee finds that the State party is responsible for a violation of article 11 of the Convention. 7.5 As for the alleged violations of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention regarding the State party’s failure to conduct a prompt, independent and diligent investigation into the allegations of torture, the Committee takes note of the complainant’s claims that, during his appearances before the judges, he said he had been tortured, but the judges took no action over this. The Committee notes that one of his lawyers informed the investigating judge in September 2009 about the physical abuse suffered by his client during questioning and that the investigating judge ignored his statements, despite the visible marks of torture on the complainant’s body. The Committee also takes note of the testimony of another lawyer, who asserts that he himself drew the investigating judge’s attention to the ill-treatment of his client, as well as of the complaint of torture filed on behalf of the complainant on 26 September 2009. The Committee observes, moreover, that, according to the complainant, the State prosecutor informed him in 2011 that the complaint of torture filed by his lawyer on 26 September 2009 had been entrusted to the investigating judge on 12 June 2009, which was before the complainant had been arrested.12 The Committee notes that the State party, in its observations, states that an investigation into torture has been opened but gives no date for the opening of the investigation and no details on the progress of the proceedings or the prosecution of the alleged perpetrators of the acts of torture and illtreatment, over six years after the events in question. The Committee also notes that, according to the decision of the Tunis court of first instance, the complainant admitted that he had committed the acts of which he was accused. 7.6 The Committee draws attention to the State party’s obligation under article 12 of the Convention to ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed.13 Such an 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.14 Moreover, a criminal investigation must seek both to determine the nature and circumstances of the alleged acts and to establish the identity of any person who might have been involved in them.15 Given the length of time that has elapsed since the complainant attempted to initiate proceedings at the domestic level, and given the lack of information from the State party concerning the follow-up to the complaint lodged by the complainant, the Committee is of the view that the State party has failed to fulfil its obligation under article 12 of the Convention. The Committee is also of the view that the State party has failed to fulfil its responsibility under article 13 of the Convention to guarantee the complainant’s right to lodge a complaint with the competent authorities, which must provide a proper response to such a complaint by launching a prompt and impartial investigation.16 11 12 13 14 15 16 GE.16-13706 See communication No. 456/2011, Hernández Colmenarez and Guerrero Sánchez v. the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, decision adopted on 15 May 2015, para. 6.7. See footnote 8 above. See communications No. 514/2012, Niyonzima v. Burundi, decision adopted on 21 November 2014, para. 8.4; and No. 500/2012, Ramírez Martínez et al. v. Mexico, decision adopted on 4 August 2015, para. 17.7. See communication No. 495/2012, E.Z. v. Kazakhstan, decision adopted on 28 November 2014, para. 13.2. See communications No. 580/2014, F.K. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 23 November 2015, para. 7.7; and No. 161/2000, Dzemajl et al. v. Yugoslavia, decision adopted on 21 November 2002, para. 9.4. See Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.5. 9