CAT/C/54/D/456/2011 complainants’ claim and the lack of information on the situation or whereabouts of Mr. Guerrero Larez have caused additional suffering to the complainants, who still do not know whether their relative is alive or not. In that connect ion, the complainants indicate that they have received only unofficial reports to the effect that their relative was tortured, dismembered and buried in the Penitentiary. Despite their efforts and complaints, in practice, the Public Prosecution Service ope ned an investigation only in the formal sense and no effective steps were taken to determine the situation or whereabouts of Mr. Guerrero Larez. Moreover, nobody has been charged with the offences and no redress has been provided for the harm caused. 3.6 The Committee notes that the facts presented in the complaint raise issues under article 12 of the Convention as they relate to the torture allegedly suffered by Mr. Guerrero Larez, in particular, owing to his disappearance while serving a sentence at the Penitentiary; to the lack of a prompt and impartial investigation into the circumstances of his alleged disappearance; and to the lack of information on his situation and whereabouts. 3.7 The Committee also notes that the facts presented in the complaint ra ise issues under article 16 of the Convention, with regard to the rights of the complainants, as they relate to the manner in which the complainants were treated by the authorities in their efforts to ascertain the whereabouts and fate of Mr. Guerrero Lare z and seek justice. 3.8 By way of redress, the complainants request the Committee to recommend that the State party: (a) conduct a thorough investigation into the circumstances in which Mr. Guerrero Larez was subjected to torture and cruel, inhuman or degr ading treatment, and disappeared; (b) establish the whereabouts of Mr. Guerrero Larez and, if necessary, have his remains returned to the complainants; and (c) grant the complainants adequate compensation for the harm caused. State party’s failure to cooperate 4. On 4 March and 17 November 2011, 25 July 2012 and 25 January 2013, the State party was invited to submit its comments on the admissibility and the merits of the complaint. The Committee notes that no information has been received in this connection. It finds the State party’s refusal to communicate any information on the admissibility and/or merits of the complainants’ claims regrettable. The Committee recalls that the State party is obligated, pursuant to the Convention, to submit written explanations or statements to the Committee in order to clarify the matter and indicate the steps, if any, that the State party may have taken to remedy the situation. In the absence of a response from the State party, the Committee will give due weight to the complainants’ allegations which have been sufficiently substantiated, 4 and will examine each of their complaints in detail. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 5.1 Before considering any claim contained in a complaint, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 5.2 The Committee notes the complainants’ claim that the matter before the Committee has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. In this regard, the Committee observes that, __________________ 4 GE.15-10585 See communication No. 503/2012, Ntikarahera v. Burundi, decision adopted on 12 May 2014, para. 4, and communication No. 376/2009, Bendib v. Algeria, decision adopted on 8 November 2013, para. 4. 7/11