CAT/C/61/D/661/2015 the complainant’s contention that A.D. should have been charged under article 146, which directly prohibits torture. The Committee also notes that A.D. was convicted and sentenced to three years of imprisonment with a two-year suspended sentence and was later amnestied, and never served a day in prison. The second investigation concerned medical personnel of the Stepnogorsk Central Hospital. This investigation, as transpires from the State party’s submissions, did not result in anyone being held accountable and was actually suspended on 27 October 2011, the day it was opened. It was eventually reinstated in 2015, following the present complaint to the Committee, but to date, the State party has not provided the Committee with any results. 8.7 The Committee recalls that an investigation in itself is not sufficient to demonstrate the State party’s conformity with its obligations under article 12 of the Convention if it can be shown not to have been conducted impartially. 9 The Committee notes that in the present case, the State party initiated two criminal investigations, conducted several forensic medical examinations and questioned numerous witnesses. The Committee notes, however, that as a result of these investigations, no one was charged with a crime of torture. The single person sentenced for negligence of his official duties as a result of the investigation never served a day in prison, and was not even arrested. The investigation into malpractice by the medical personnel was discontinued without addressing the detailed evidence presented by the complainant and reinstated only in 2015, also without obvious results. The Committee recalls that article 12 of the Convention also requires that the investigation should be prompt and impartial, promptness being essential both to ensure that the victim cannot continue to be subjected to acts of torture and also because, in general, unless the methods employed have permanent or serious effects, the physical traces of torture, and especially of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, soon disappear.10 8.8 In the light of the above findings and based on the materials before it, the Committee concludes that the State party has failed to comply with its obligation to carry out a prompt and impartial investigation into Ashim Rakishev’s allegations that his son had been tortured, in violation of article 12 of the Convention. The Committee considers that the State party has also failed to comply with its obligation under article 13 and to ensure the complainant’s right to complain and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by the competent authorities.11 8.9 With regard to the alleged violation of article 14 of the Convention, the Committee notes that it is uncontested that the complainant was not able to bring a claim of damages as a result of that torture that his son suffered, based on the fact that no perpetrators of torture were identified. The Committee recalls in this respect that article 14 of the Convention recognizes not only 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 redress should cover all the harm suffered by the victim, including restitution, compensation, rehabilitation of the victim and measures to guarantee that there is no recurrence of the violations, while always bearing in mind the circumstances of each case. A civil proceeding should be available independently of the criminal proceeding and necessary legislation and institutions for such civil procedures should be in place and available. 12 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that since no person was charged and convicted of torture, the courts could not consider the issue of compensation. Owing to the unavailability of civil proceedings independent of the criminal proceedings, and on the basis of the information before it, the Committee concludes that the State party is also in breach of its obligations under article 14 of the Convention. 9 10 11 12 8 See communication No. 257/2004, Keremedchiev v. Bulgaria, decision adopted on 11 November 2008, para. 9.4. See communication No. 59/1996, Blanco Abad v. Spain, decision adopted on 14 May 1998, para. 8.2. In paragraph 9 of its concluding observations on the third periodic report of Kazakhstan (CAT/C/KAZ/CO/3), the State party was also called upon “to ensure that those convicted are punished with appropriate penalties that are commensurate to the gravity of the crime of torture”. See communication No. 441/2010, Evloev v. Kazakhstan, decision adopted on 5 November 2013, para. 9.7.