A/HRC/13/39/Add.5 doing so, I was guided by article 14 CAT, which provides that each State party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, the victim’s dependants are entitled to compensation. The rights enshrined in article 14 should be seen as a specific manifestation of the general right of victims of human rights violations to a remedy and adequate reparation, as laid down in various international and regional human rights treaties (see e.g. article 2(3) CCPR) and should also apply to victims of other forms of CIDT. While the State bears the primary responsibility to provide an effective remedy and full reparation for victims of torture, the individual perpetrator, his or her superiors and the authorities directly responsible should be held accountable to bear the costs for as full rehabilitation as possible, which may also have a deterrent effect. 168. The right of victims of torture to a remedy and adequate reparation is closely linked to the right of victims to make a complaint to a competent authority under article 13 CAT, and the obligations on the part of the authorities to initiate, ex officio, investigations into torture allegations as stipulated by article 12 CAT. Both provisions aim at the establishment of the facts by a competent and independent authority in an expedient and impartial manner, which constitutes a prerequisite not only for further criminal prosecution of the perpetrators, but also for any claim by the victims to adequate reparation under civil law. Without the possibility to lodge a complaint, either because mechanisms are ineffective or non-existent, or because victims or witnesses are too afraid to speak out due to fear of further ill-treatment and reprisals, the right to an effective remedy and reparation remains illusory in practice. Equally, where official investigations are ineffective and slow to establish the facts, victims of torture are in most cases also deprived of further avenues to claim reparation. 169. In my experience as Special Rapporteur, being able to voice the experience of pain, suffering and humiliation before a competent authority may already bring an important element of relief and healing to victims and further encourage them to seek justice. During the many interviews with victims of torture I conducted, what seemed to matter most to them was breaking the wall of silence, being able to tell their story and being heard. A very telling experience in this respect was the courage with which victims of torture and other ill-treatment in Equatorial Guinea were willing to speak about what happened to them despite the fear of imminent reprisals. I was told many times that what mattered to them was that they were not forgotten and that their stories be made public. This also shows that public acknowledgment of the pain, suffering and humiliation experienced by the victims is an important first step in ending their situation of powerlessness and seeking redress. 170. The scope of the right to a remedy and adequate reparation should, in line with the 2005 UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, be interpreted in a broad sense to encompass not only monetary compensation, but also include measures of reparation aimed at the restitution, rehabilitation and satisfaction of the victim, including guarantees of non-repetition (see principles 19–23). Although the use of the terms “redress” and “compensation” in article 14 CAT does not reflect the same terminology, the Committee against Torture has regularly drawn attention to the fact that the rights contained therein involve not only the provision of material compensation and redress but also physical, mental and social rehabilitation.111 In its leading case in Guridi v Spain, the Committee held that adequate reparation should cover all the damages suffered by the victim, including restitution, compensation and 111 44 CAT/C/SR.36, para 21.