CAT/C/68/D/852/2017 9.2 The Committee notes that the main issue before it consists in determining whether the complainant’s allegations of abuse by staff of the Child and Adolescent Unit at Lake Alice Psychiatric Hospital between 1974 and 1977 have been promptly and impartially examined by the competent authorities, in accordance with articles 12 and 13 of the Convention. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that 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 may have been involved.33 That is not an obligation of result, but one of means.34 The Committee must therefore assess whether the authorities of the State party have taken reasonable steps to conduct an investigation that is capable not only of establishing the facts, but also of identifying and punishing those responsible. 9.3 The Committee first notes that the State party does not contest the events that took place in the 1970s at the Lake Alice Child and Adolescent Unit. Complaints for those events were first filed in 1976, with the complainant participating in the 1977 Commission of Inquiry. According to the police report, dated 22 March 2010, the Unit was closed in 1979 “following concern about supervision and a number of critical investigations”. The Committee also notes that the State party does not contest the claim that the complainant was a victim of those events. The letter of apology that the complainant received on or around 23 December 2002 mentions that the Government apologized for the “treatment” that the complainant had “received and may have witnessed” at Lake Alice. The Committee also notes that the State party does not contest the claim that the treatment alleged by the complainant meets the threshold of torture, as defined in article 1 of the Convention, or, at least, of ill-treatment, as defined in article 16 of the Convention. 9.4 The Committee further notes that in his 2006 complaint to the police, the complainant referred to the application of electric shocks and the administration of drugs as punishment, as well as instances of sexual offending at a time when he was still a child in State care. However, despite the gravity of those allegations and his particular vulnerability as a child at the time of events and also despite the findings by a retired High Court judge that electroconvulsive therapy was constantly used on the children as a punishment, the Committee notes that, following a police investigation that lasted for over three and a half years, the resulting report, dated 22 March 2010, did not clarify whether the alleged treatment was indeed applied as a punishment. The report notes that “there is evidence of the application of ECT in both treatment modes. There is also evidence of the application of electric shocks in circumstances that might suggest use as a form of aversion therapy or punishment.” The report also mentions that “this is the seventh examination of these or related facts”. In that connection, the Committee recalls its recommendation to the State party to investigate promptly and impartially the allegations of ill-treatment in the “historic cases” and to prosecute the perpetrators (para. 2.8 above). The Committee also recalls the State party’s response that the Police Complaints Authority “may technically decide not to action a complaint of torture when the complainant has had knowledge for more than 12 months before the complaint was made. However, given the seriousness of the accusation, it is likely that the Authority would investigate historic complaints of torture” (CAT/C/NZL/Q/5/Add.1, para. 120). The Committee further recalls its finding in its 2015 concluding observations on the State party’s sixth periodic report that “the State party failed to investigate or hold any individual accountable for the nearly 200 allegations of torture and ill-treatment against minors at Lake Alice Hospital”, together with its recommendation to conduct prompt, impartial and thorough investigations into all allegations of ill-treatment in health-care institutions and prosecute persons suspected of ill-treatment (CAT/C/NZL/CO/6, para. 15). The 2010 police report also notes the “intense and ongoing media interest in this case”. The Committee therefore expresses concern that despite repeated investigations into the same matter, police acknowledgment of “evidence of the application” and the State party’s acknowledgment before the Committee of the seriousness of historic complaints of torture, while admitting the continuing public interest in the matter, the authorities of the State party made no consistent efforts to establish the facts of such a 33 34 14 See Kirsanov v. Russian Federation, para. 11.3. See, for example, European Court of Human Rights, C.A.S. and C.S. v. Romania, application No. 26692/05, 20 March 2012, para. 70.