CAT/C/71/D/843/2017 launching a prompt and impartial investigation. 28 The Committee therefore also finds a violation of article 13 of the Convention. 6.7 Regarding the complainant’s claims under article 14 of the Convention, the Committee recalls that this article not only recognizes the right to fair and adequate compensation but also requires States parties to ensure that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress. The Committee recalls that redress should cover all the harm suffered by the victim and should encompass, among other measures, restitution, compensation and guarantees of non-repetition of the violations, taking into account the circumstances of the individual case.29 In the present case, in the absence of a prompt and impartial investigation, despite clear material evidence that the complainant was the victim of acts of torture which have gone unpunished, the Committee concludes that the State party has also failed to fulfil its obligations under article 14 of the Convention.30 6.8 As for the claim under article 16 of the Convention, the Committee has taken note of the complainant’s allegations that she was detained from 21 March 2014 to 12 June 2015 at the Mpimba central prison, which is characterized by unsanitary conditions and overcrowding amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment. In the absence of any relevant information from the State party in this regard, the Committee concludes that the facts in the present case disclose a violation by the State party of its obligations under article 16 of the Convention.31 7. The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of articles 2 (1), and 11–14, read in conjunction with article 1, and of article 16 of the Convention. 8. Insofar as the State party has failed to respond to the Committee’s requests to submit observations on this complaint, thereby refusing to cooperate with the Committee and preventing it from effectively considering the elements of the complaint, the Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, decides that the facts before it constitute a violation by the State party of article 22 of the Convention. 9. Pursuant to rule 118 (5) of its rules of procedure, the Committee urges the State party to launch an impartial investigation into the events in question, with a view to bringing those allegedly responsible for the victim’s treatment to justice, and to inform it, within 90 days of the date of transmittal of this decision, of the steps it has taken in response to the above observations, including adequate and fair compensation encompassing the means for as full a rehabilitation as possible of the victim. 28 29 30 31 8 Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.5. Ibid., para. 8.6. See also Ntikarahera v. Burundi, para. 6.5. Ndarisigaranye v. Burundi, para. 8.7. Ibid., para. 8.8; Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.8; and Ntikarahera v. Burundi, para. 6.6. GE.21-13853