believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction.” UN TREATY BODIES 1 This obligation to investigate is complemented by Article 13, which provides that individuals shall have the right to complain to the competent authorities, and that the State shall take steps to protect the complainant and witnesses against reprisal. Articles 12 and 13 also apply to acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.55 While the Committee has given no specific guidance on the maximum time which may elapse between grounds for suspicion of ill-treatment having arisen, and commencing or completing an investigation, it stressed in Blanco Abad v Spain that “promptness is essential both to ensure that the victim cannot continue to be subjected to such acts 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.”56 In that case, the Committee considered a period of 18 days between the initial report of ill-treatment and the initiation of an investigation too long. The State obligation to ensure a prompt and impartial investigation does not depend on the submission of a formal complaint. Rather, it is sufficient for torture to have been alleged by the victim,57 or that other reasonable grounds exist to believe that torture or ill-treatment may have occurred, whatever the origin of the suspicion.58 Furthermore, the investigation must be effective, carried out by appropriately qualified individuals,59 and “seek both to determine the nature and circumstances of the alleged acts and to establish the identity of any person who might have been involved therein.”60 At least where it is necessary to ensure the right of redress, the alleged victim must be informed of the outcome of the investigation.61 Article 16 UNCAT. Blanco Abad v Spain, CAT Communication No. 59/1996, 14 May 1998, §8.2. Parot v Spain, CAT Communication No. 6/1990, 2 May 1995, §10.4. See also Blanco Abad v Spain (1998), op. cit., §8.6, where the CAT stated that “it is enough for the victim simply to bring the facts to the attention of an authority of the State for the latter to be obliged to consider it as a tacit but unequivocal expression of the victim’s wish that the facts should be promptly and impartially investigated, as prescribed by this provision of the Convention.” This point was reiterated in Ltaief v Tunisia, CAT Communication No. 189/2001, 14 November 2003, §10.6, 58 Blanco Abad v Spain (1998), op. cit., §8.2. See also Ltaief v Tunisia (2003), op. cit., §10.5. 59 Ristic v Yugoslavia, CAT Communication No. 113/1998, 11 May 2001, §9.5. 60 Blanco Abad v Spain (1998), op. cit., §8.8. 61 Dimitrijevic v Serbia and Montenegro, CAT Communication No. 207/2002, 24 November 2004, §5.4. 55 56 57 16