Seeking Remedies for Torture Victims: A Handbook on the Individual Complaints Procedures of the UN Tready Bodies initial arrest were willing to testify as to the author’s good physical condition immediately prior to his arrest and that the author’s family was willing to testify in relation to the evident signs of abuse, including severe bruising, upon the author’s body. The author too was willing to testify as to the abuse he had suffered. Mr L did not receive a reply from the Chief Prosecutor in respect of the complaint until 5 June 2003 (see annex 24 for copy of reply from Chief Prosecutor). 20. Mr L submitted a fresh complaint to the Chief Prosecutor on 15 January 2003 (see Annex 25 for a copy of the second complaint to the Chief Prosecutor) regarding V’s treatment in prison, outlining the prison conditions and the treatment received from Messrs P and Q, as well as the reaction by the warden to the complaint to prison authorities. The complaint was submitted after the author’s release from City Prison, due to the fear of retribution if the author had remained incarcerated at the time of the complaint. This fear of retribution was reasonable, given the retribution suffered as a result of the submission of the complaint to the prison authorities (see above paragraph 13). No reply was received from the Chief Prosecutor in respect of that complaint until 17 September 2003 (see Annex 26 for a copy of the second reply received from the Chief Prosecutor). 21. The investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment at both City Police Station and City Prison by the Chief Prosecutor proceeded extremely slowly. As noted, the replies to both complaints were delayed without any explanation. Indeed, on almost every occasion in which there was communication between the Chief Prosecutor and the author, it was initiated by Mr L on his behalf. That is, the Chief Prosecutor’s office rarely contacted the author or Mr L of its own volition, and indeed rarely replied to the communications from Mr L at all (see Annex 27 for diary notes of Mr L, documenting contact with the Chief Prosecutor’s office). On the other hand, Mr L contacted the Chief Prosecutor to inquire about the progress of the investigation and to submit evidence, such as the written medical and psychiatric reports of Dr H, Dr J, and Dr K. The letters written by Mr. L are listed below as are the responses from the Chief Prosecutor’s Office: i. Letter of Complaint to Chief Prosecutor, dated 1 October 2002 (Annex 22) ii. Reply to Letter of Complaint from Chief Prosecutor, dated 5 June 2003 (Annex 24) iii. Letter of Complaint to Chief Prosecutor, dated 15 January 2003 (Annex 25) iv. Reply from Chief Prosecutor to Letter of Complaint, dated 17 September 2003 (Annex 26) v. Letter by Mr. L to the Chief Prosecutor inquiring as to the progress of the investigation, dated 7 January 2003 (Annex 28) vi. Letter by Mr. L to the Chief Prosecutor inquiring as to the progress of both investigations and including written medical and psychiatric reports of Dr. H, Dr. J and Dr. K, dated 18 March 2003 (Annex 29) vii. Letter by Mr. L to the Chief Prosecutor inquiring as to the progress of the investigation, dated 17 April 2003 (Annex 30) viii. Letter by Mr. L to the Chief Prosecutor inquiring as to the progress of the investigation, dated 20 June 2003 (Annex 31) ix. Letter by Mr. L to the Chief Prosecutor inquiring as to the progress of the investigation, dated 30 August 2003 (Annex 32) x. Letter by Mr. L to the Chief Prosecutor inquiring as to the progress of the investigation, dated 21 September 2003 (Annex 33) xi. Letter by Mr. L to the Chief Prosecutor inquiring as to the progress of the investigation, dated 27 December 2003 (Annex 34) xii. Letter from Chief Prosecutor’s Office to organize an interview with the author on 15 March 2004, dated 26 February 2004. (Annex 35) (see below, paragraph 22) 112