CAT/C/46/D/341/2008 prisoners.9 Given the lack of information provided by the State party on these issues and the arguments put forward in its observations, the Committee is obliged to find that the State party has failed in its obligations under article 11 of the Convention. 9.6 In respect of the alleged violation of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the Committee observes that, according to the complainant, none of the authorities contacted, including the Tiaret prosecutor, told her whether an investigation was being or had been conducted as a result of the initial complaint filed in January 1999. According to the complainant, the only investigation conducted was part of the procedure concerning the allocation of assistance, and took place only in 2006; and the officials in charge of investigating the circumstances of the death of Djilali Hanafi were the people responsible for his death. The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the victim’s family decided to await a hypothetical reply from the public prosecutor’s office rather than bring proceedings themselves. The Committee also finds that no impartial and thorough criminal investigation had been initiated to shed light on the death of the complainant’s husband, even 12 years after the events, a fact not disputed by the State party. The absence of an investigation is particularly inexplicable in that the death certificate issued in April 2006 refers to the suspicious death of the victim. The Committee considers that such a delay before an investigation is initiated into allegations of torture is unreasonably long and does not meet the requirements of article 12 of the Convention, which requires the State party to proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed.10 Nor has the State party fulfilled its obligation under article 13 of the Convention to ensure that the complainant has the right to complain to, and to have his or her case promptly and impartially examined by, its competent authorities. 9.7 With regard to the alleged violation of article 14 of the Convention, the Committee notes the complainant’s allegations that the State party has deprived her of any form of redress by failing to act on her complaint and by not immediately launching a public investigation. The Committee recalls that article 14 of the Convention not only recognizes the right to fair and adequate compensation, but also requires States parties to ensure that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress. The Committee considers that redress should cover all the harm suffered by the victim, including restitution, compensation and measures to guarantee that there is no recurrence of the violations, while always bearing in mind the circumstances of each case.11 Given the lack of a prompt and impartial investigation, despite the existence of an autopsy report and particularly of a death certificate that refers to a suspicious death, the Committee concludes that the State party was also in violation of its obligations under article 14 of the Convention. 9.8 With regard to respecting the procedure established in article 22, the Committee notes that, by letter of 29 June 2009, counsel for the complainant informed the Committee that the victim’s brother, Mr. Sahraoui Hanafi, who had submitted the initial complaint, wished to withdraw his communication to the Committee; that this request was motivated by pressure brought to bear on him and on the victim’s fellow detainees; and that they had allegedly been questioned by the State authorities to make them retract. The Committee notes that the State party does not contest the fact that it questioned the victim’s brother and fellow detainees, and that it justifies such action by the need to demonstrate the defamatory 9 10 11 GE.11-43885 Committee against Torture, fortieth session, Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 19 of the Convention, concluding observations on Algeria, para. 5 (CAT/C/DZA/CO/3, 16 May 2008). Communication No. 269/2005, Ali Ben Salem v. Tunisia, decision adopted on 7 November 2007, para. 16.7. Ibid., para. 16.8. 15