who arrived first on the scene, is indisputable and confirmed by the fact that
the request for an investigation filed by the author of the communication
was directed not against these persons but others.
7.8 Concerning the judicial proceedings that followed the death of the
victim, the State party recalls the various steps of the procedure and notes
that the main reason that an investigation had not been ordered was the lack
of strong evidence to prove a causal link between the behaviour of the three
defendant police officers and the death of the victim. The State party
contends that the procedure has been scrupulously respected at all steps and
that the complaint has been carefully considered by all the magistrates who
have had to deal with the case.
7.9 Finally, the State party emphasizes that certain omissions that may have
occurred during the events immediately following the death of the alleged
victim and that have been referred to by the author of the communication
were not important because they do not prove that the alleged victim died as
a result of torture.
Comments submitted by the author on the merits
8.1 In a submission dated 4 January 1999, the author refers to relevant
jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. In a further
submission dated 19 April 2000, the author confirmed the assertions he had
made in his communication and gave to the Committee additional
observations on the merits of the communication.
8.2 The author first makes some remarks on specific issues raised or ignored
by the State party in its observations. In this regard, the author mainly points
to the fact that the State party limited itself to arguing that the three police
officers allegedly responsible for the murder were not involved in the death
of the alleged victim and fails to address the main issue of the
communication, which is the failure to carry out a prompt, impartial and
comprehensive investigation.
8.3 The author focuses on the following factual elements supporting his
claim:
(a) The inspector in charge of the case took three months to collect the
information needed for the investigation;
(b) The District Court was only requested to initiate an investigation seven
months after the death of the alleged victim;