CAT/C/35/D/174/2000 Page 11 (d) The contradiction between the police report and the report of the investigating judge (both dated 19 April 1994) as to the voluntary nature of the death of N. N., describing it as an accident resulting from the deceased’s attempt to escape his arrest (police report) or as the result of what appears to have been a suicide (investigation report: “Nikolic had just jumped out of the window”); (e) The absence of witnesses who would have confirmed that N. N. jumped out of the window of apartment no. 82; (f) The alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of M. K. (paras. 2.5 and 2.19); (g) The fact that the investigating judged arrived at Pariske Komune Street no. 2 only at 10.30 a.m., apparently because he had not been informed of the death until 30 minutes after the incident, and that, despite his order to interview all witnesses, allegedly only the concerned police inspectors were interviewed; (h) The alleged inconsistencies in the autopsy report and in the forensic findings of the expert commission and, in particular, the objections raised by Dr. Z. S., particularly his statement that it could not be excluded that some of the injuries had been inflicted prior to the fall, which in turn might have been inflicted by treatment in violation of the Convention; (i) The alleged prior involvement of inspector J. J. in an act of torture; and (j) The uncertainty about prior threats by the police and attempts to arrest N. N., allegedly involving the use of firearms by the police. 6.4 On the basis of these elements, the Committee considers that there were reasonable grounds for the State party to investigate the complainants’ allegation that their son was tortured prior to his death. 6.5 The question therefore arises whether the investigative measures taken by the State party’s authorities, in particular by the Belgrade deputy public prosecutor, were commensurate to the requirement of article 12 of the Convention to proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation of the events preceding the death of N. N. In this regard, the Committee notes the complainants’ uncontested claim that the deputy public prosecutor advised them already on 22 April 1994, i.e. three days before the autopsy, that he would not initiate criminal proceedings ex officio, as he considered their son’s death an accident, and that he did not examine any of the witnesses named by their lawyer. It also notes that the investigating judge entrusted the same forensic experts, who had conducted the autopsy, with the preparation of both expert opinions, with a view to addressing the alleged inconsistencies in their own autopsy report, despite several requests by the complainants to order a forensic expertise from another institution. The Committee concludes that the investigation of the circumstances of the death of the complainants’ son was not impartial and therefore in violation of article 12 of the Convention. 6.6 With regard to the alleged violation of article 13, the Committee observes that, although the complainants were entitled to complain to the courts after the deputy