CAT/C/39/D/269/2005 page 14 16.4 The complainant has alleged a violation of article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention, on the grounds that the State party failed in its duty to prevent and punish acts of torture. These provisions are applicable insofar as the acts to which the complainant was subjected are considered acts of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. In this respect, the Committee takes note of the complaint submitted and the supporting medical certificates, describing the physical injuries inflicted on the complainant, which can be characterized as severe pain and suffering inflicted deliberately by officials with a view to punishing him for acts he had allegedly committed and to intimidating him. The Committee also notes that the State party does not dispute the facts as presented by the complainant. In the circumstances, the Committee concludes that the complainant’s allegations must be duly taken into account and that the facts, as presented by the complainant, constitute torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. 16.5 In light of the above finding of a violation of article 1 of the Convention, the Committee need not consider whether there was a violation of article 16, paragraph 1, as the treatment suffered by the complainant in breach of article 1 is more serious and is covered by the violation of article 16 of the Convention. 16.6 Regarding articles 2 and 11, the Committee considers that the documents communicated to it furnish no proof that the State party has failed to discharge its obligations under these provisions of the Convention. 16.7 As to the allegations concerning the violation of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the Committee notes that according to the complainant the Public Prosecutor failed to inform him whether an inquiry was under way or had been carried out in the three years following submission of his complaint in 2000. The Committee further notes that the State party accepts that the Deputy Public Prosecutor filed the case without further action in 2003, for lack of evidence. The State party has, however, informed the Committee that the competent authorities have reopened the case (see paragraph 11 above). The State party has also indicated that the investigation is continuing, more than seven years after the alleged incidents, yet has given no details concerning the inquiry or any indication of when a decision might be expected. 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,12 which requires the State party to proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation whenever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed. 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 case promptly and impartially investigated by, its competent authorities. 16.8 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 him of any form of redress by failing to act on his complaint and by not immediately launching a public investigation. The Committee recalls that article 14 of the Convention recognizes not only the right to fair and 12 [See communication No. 8/1991, Halimi-Nedzibi v. Austria, Views of 18 November 1993, para. 13.5.]