vulnerable to degrading treatment. All else being equal, a given level of physical abuse is more likely to constitute “degrading or inhuman treatment or punishment” when motivated by racial animus and/or coupled with racial epithets than when racial considerations are absent. 3.2 With respect to article 12 read alone or taken together with article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the complainant claims that the State party’s authorities failed to conduct a prompt, impartial and comprehensive investigation into the incident at issue, notwithstanding ample evidence that an act of torture and/or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment had been committed. Public prosecutors seldom institute criminal proceedings against police officers accused of violence and/or misconduct even though such cases are in the category of those that are officially prosecuted by the State. When the victims themselves or NGOs on their behalf file complaints against police misconduct, public prosecutors as a rule fail to initiate proceedings. They generally restrict themselves to requesting information from the police authorities and, when none is forthcoming, they take no further action. Judicial dilatoriness in proceedings involving police brutality often results in the expiration of the time period envisaged by law for the prosecution of the case. Notwithstanding the proclaimed principle of the independence of the judiciary, practice makes clear that public prosecutors’ offices do not operate on this principle and that both they and the courts are not independent of the agencies and offices of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. This is especially true with respect to incidents of police misconduct. 3.3 With respect to article 13 of the Convention, the complainant submits that the right to complain implies not just a legal possibility to do so but also the right to an effective remedy for the harm suffered. In view of the fact that he has received no redress for the violations at issue, he concludes that his rights under article 13, taken alone and/or in conjunction with article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention, have been violated. 3.4 The complainant further claims that his rights under article 14, taken alone and/or in conjunction with article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention, have been violated. By failing to provide him with a criminal remedy the State party has barred him from obtaining “fair and adequate compensation” in a civil lawsuit, “including the means for as full a rehabilitation as possible”. Pursuant to domestic law, the complainant had the possibility of seeking compensation by way of two different procedures: (i) criminal proceedings, under article 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which should have been instituted on the basis of his criminal complaint; or (ii) in a civil action for damages under articles 154 and 200 of the Law on Obligations. Since no formal criminal proceedings followed as a result of his complaint with the Public Prosecutor, the first avenue remained closed to him. As regards the second avenue, the complainant filed no civil action for compensation given that it is standard practice of the State party’s courts to suspend civil cases for damages arising out of criminal offences until the completion of the respective criminal proceedings. Had the complainant decided to sue for damages immediately following the incident, he would have faced another insurmountable procedural impediment caused by the inaction of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, namely, articles 186 and 106 of the Civil Procedure Code, which stipulate that both parties to a civil action - the plaintiff and the respondent - must be identified by name, address and other relevant personal data. Since the complainant to date remains unaware of this information, and as it was the duty of the Public Prosecutor’s Office to establish these facts, instituting a civil action for compensation would have clearly been procedurally impossible and therefore rejected by the civil court. 144