the State police forces that it has received from non-governmental
organizations" (A/54/44, para. 46) and "gravely concerned over the lack of
sufficient investigation, prosecution and punishment by the competent
authorities … of suspected torturers or those breaching article 16 of the
Convention, as well as with the insufficient reaction to the complaints of
such abused persons, resulting in the de facto impunity of the perpetrators of
acts of torture" (ibid., para. 47).
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
9.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all
information made available to it by the parties concerned, in accordance
with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. It regrets in this regard that
the State party has only provided the Committee with a different account of
the event, and notes that more precise information concerning the conduct of
the investigation was necessary, including an explanation of why a new
autopsy was not carried out.
9.2 It also notes that the author of the communication claims that the State
party has violated articles 2, 12, 13, 14 and 16 of the Convention.
9.3 With regard to articles 2 and 16, the Committee first considers that it
does not fall under its mandate to assess the guilt of persons who have
allegedly committed acts of torture or police brutality. Its competence is
limited to considering whether the State party has failed to comply with any
of the provisions of the Convention. In the present case, the Committee will
therefore not pronounce itself on the existence of torture or ill-treatment.
9.4 With regard to articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the Committee
notes the following elements, on which both parties have been able to
submit observations:
(a) There are apparent differences and inconsistencies between the statement
made on 18 August 1995 by the doctor who came with the ambulance as to
the premise of the cause of death of the alleged victim, the autopsy report of
13 February 1995 and the report made on 20 March 1995 by two forensic
experts at the request of the parents of the alleged victim;
(b) Although the investigating judge in charge of the case when the parents
of the alleged victim proceeded in the capacity of private prosecutor stated
that the autopsy "had not been performed in line with all the rules of
forensic medicine", there was no order of exhumation of the body for a new
forensic examination;