CAT/C/52/D/478/2011 conditions of detention in the temporary confinement ward amounted to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of article 16 of the Convention. 11.3 With regard to the alleged violations of articles 12 and 13, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence2 that a criminal investigation must seek both to determine the nature and circumstances of the alleged acts and to establish the identity of any person who may have been involved therein. The Committee observes that the authorities of the State party conducted an investigation into the complainant’s allegations, which confirmed some of his allegations regarding the duration and conditions of his detention in the temporary confinement ward and established who the officials were who were responsible for his placement there. Accordingly, the Committee finds that the State party did not violate the complainant’s rights under articles 12 and 13 of the Convention. 11.4 With regard to the alleged violations of articles 14 and 15 of the Convention, the Committee notes that the scope of application of the said provisions only refers to torture in the sense of article 1 of the Convention and does not cover other forms of ill-treatment. Moreover, article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention, though specifically referring to articles 10, 11, 12 and 13, does not mention articles 14 and 15 of the Convention. Nevertheless, the State party is obliged to grant redress and fair and adequate compensation to the victim of an act carried out in breach of article 16 of the Convention. The positive obligations that flow from the first sentence of article 16 of the Convention include an obligation to grant redress and compensate the victims of an act carried out in breach of that provision.3 The Committee observes that although the complainant was granted compensation, in order to obtain it he had to file a civil law suit and to prove his allegation in a civil court, despite the findings of an investigation by the Prosecutor’s Office. The Committee further observes that the findings of the civil court resulted in the complainant being awarded a symbolic amount of monetary compensation and that the civil court had no jurisdiction to impose any measures on the individuals responsible for the cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The Committee is therefore of the view that the State party has failed to observe its obligations under article 16 of the Convention by failing to provide the complainant with redress and with fair and adequate compensation.4 12. The Committee, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention, is of the view that the facts before it disclose violations of article 16 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 13. Pursuant to rule 118, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the Committee invites the State party to take steps to provide the complainant with redress, including fair and adequate compensation. The State party is also under an obligation to prevent similar violations in the future. The Committee invites the State party to inform it, within 90 days of the date of the transmittal of this decision, of the steps that it has taken in response to the present decision. [Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] 2 3 4 See communication No. 59/1996, Encarnación Blanco Abad v. Spain, Views adopted on 14 May 1998, para. 8.8. See communication No. 161/2000, Hajrizi Dzemajl et al. v. Yugoslavia, decision adopted on 21 November 2002, para. 9.6. See also communication No. 261/2005, Osmani v. Serbia, decision adopted on 8 May 2009, para. 10.8. 9