CAT/C/67/D/813/2017 lack of impartiality cannot be justified by a hierarchical relationship between the prosecutors, and refutes that the investigation was based on written declarations by the two federal judges who had rejected their alleged lack of impartiality. Moreover, the State party objects to the claim that the prosecutor’s investigations and findings would not be thorough and objective. Instead, it considers the complainant’s allegations as made up since his claims of delays and incomplete investigations were not substantiated,18 as the investigations were launched in 2014 and the testimonies by the officials and the complainant were considered as being of equal importance. 6.15 Finally, the State party denies that the Government violated its obligations emanating from the Convention by using Belgian law as an excuse for not establishing jurisdiction over Belgian suspects, and by not conducting a prompt and impartial investigation and prosecuting suspects for their complicity in the acts of torture. 6.16 As regards article 10 of the Convention, the State party affirms that the information on the absolute prohibition of torture was shared during the general human rights education, and during the training on the appropriate use of force by law enforcement officers. 19 Awareness about the detection and the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment is part of the basic and follow-up training for the police. Training of police personnel is subject to an annual training plan, and the police are continuing their efforts to strengthen the training of staff at all levels, including on the prohibition of torture. Over and above training, police officers are assessed on an ongoing basis on their respect for human rights, and where appropriate, the lack thereof is sanctioned through statutory assessment procedures or recourse to existing disciplinary and penal procedures. Prohibition of torture is also part of police ethics. The State party thus cannot agree with the complainant’s conclusions about the absence of training for public officials, since Mr. Clareboets did not detect that the complainant had been subjected to torture. 6.17 With regard to the claims of violations of article 14, the State party objects that it would have failed in ensuring adequate reparation to the complainant, including rehabilitation for torture endured during detention, which would have required effective investigation into his allegations. The complainant claimed that he had been detained in Guantanamo Bay from 15 February 2002 to 25 April 2005 without any charges being brought against him and without being informed of the reasons for his detention or of its duration. States parties are required under article 14 of the Convention to undertake a prompt and impartial investigation into allegations of torture, and to recognize this duty officially, so to be able to offer an apology from the responsible authorities, to prosecute the presumed authors and to offer rehabilitation or financial compensation for the harm suffered. Despite the complainant’s action against a civil party before the investigating judge of the Brussels Court of First Instance, the complainant has not received any form of compensation since his return to Belgium, and the investigative judge declared his complaint inadmissible on the basis of the jurisdictional privilege of the judges concerned. The complainant’s request for a criminal investigation into the acts of torture was also dismissed by the Prosecutor-General, since the civil claims against the federal judges had been rejected. The complainant wishes to obtain full reparation from Belgium for complicity of the Belgian public officials, including Mr. Clareboets, Ms. Van de Voorde and Mr. Bernard. The State party claims that it is offended by accusations of complicity in torture suffered by the complainant at Guantanamo Bay, given that it had no direct or indirect control over the foreign territory. There is no reason to question the inadmissibility decisions of the investigative judge, who rejected the request for criminal investigation of the allegations of torture after duly hearing the federal judges pursued by the civil action. Given the lack of complicity in the complainant’s detention by its agents, the State party considers the complaint manifestly unfounded and inadmissible. The State party concludes that it cannot be held liable under the Convention, reiterating that the complaint is also without merits. 18 19 The complainant also claimed that the Federal Public Prosecutor had failed to take into account the report by the United States Senate in regard to the programme of reinforced interrogations by the Central Intelligence Agency. The State party refers to CAT/C/BEL/2 and CAT/C/BEL/3. 9