CAT/C/39/D/269/2005 page 5 3.4 With respect to the alleged violation of article 13, the complainant points out that the State party has not discharged its duty to protect him against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint. On the contrary, he considers that the State party has exposed him to intimidation by its own police force. He also points out that since the events in question he has been under nearly constant surveillance by the Tunisian police. 3.5 With respect to the alleged violation of article 14, the complainant considers that the State party has ignored his right to file a complaint, and has thus deprived him of his right to obtain compensation and the means for his rehabilitation. Even if civil suits may theoretically afford adequate reparation for victims of torture, they are either unavailable or inadequate. Under article 7 of the Tunisian Code of Criminal Procedure, when a complainant chooses to bring both civil and criminal actions, judgement cannot be handed down in the civil suit until a definitive decision has been reached on the criminal charges. Since criminal proceedings were never begun in this case, the State party has denied the complainant the opportunity to claim civil damages. If the complainant brings a civil suit without any criminal proceedings being initiated, he must renounce any future criminal charges. Thus, even if he won his case, the limited compensation that resulted would be neither fair nor appropriate.3 3.6 With respect to the alleged violation of article 16, the complainant argues that while the ill-treatment he suffered may not qualify as torture, it does constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 3.7 On the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the complainant points out that he has unsuccessfully tried all the remedies available under Tunisian law. He has tried three times to file a complaint with the Public Prosecutor’s office (see paragraph 2.5 above). He has received no response to his complaints, although they were submitted in 2000. He notes the Committee’s finding that allegations of torture are of such gravity that, if there is reasonable ground to believe that such an act has been committed, the State party has the obligation to proceed automatically to a prompt and impartial investigation.4 In such cases, the victim need only bring the matter to the attention of the authorities for the State to be under such an obligation.5 In the present case, not only did the complainant report the matter, but international organizations have also publicly decried the brutality to which he was subjected. 3.8 In the complainant’s opinion, five years of inaction by the Public Prosecutor after a criminal complaint is submitted is an unreasonable and unjustifiable amount of time. He points out that the Committee has regarded a period of several months between the time the competent 3 See communication No. 161/2000, Hajrizi Dzemajl et al. v. Serbia and Montenegro, decision adopted on 21 November 2002, para. 9.6. 4 See communication No. 187/2001, Thabti v. Tunisia, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 10.4. 5 See communication No. 6/1990, Parot v. Spain, decision adopted on 26 April 1994, para. 10.4.