police report that had been made at the time of the death; the European Court of Human Rights (Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria (90/1997/874/1086)). (d) The eyewitness Dragan Markovic did mention in his only statement the presence at the scene of police officers Z. Jeftic and S. Isailovic and not the presence of the three defendant police officers; [7.6] Concerning the principle of prompt investigation of incidents of alleged torture or other ill-treatment, the author refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence stating that a delay of 15 months before the initiation of an investigation is unreasonable and contrary to article 12 of the Convention (Qani Halimi-Nedzibi v. Austria, CAT/C/11/D/8/1991). (e) The Šabac Police Department failed to provide the photographs taken at the scene of the incident, as a result of which the investigating judge transmitted incomplete documentation to the public prosecutor; [7.7] Concerning the principle of the impartiality of the judicial authorities, the author states that a body cannot be impartial if it is not sufficiently independent. He refers to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights to define both the impartiality and the independence of a judicial body in accordance with article 6 (1) and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights and underlines that the authority capable of providing a remedy should be “sufficiently independent” from the alleged responsible author of the violation. (f) When the parents of the alleged victim proceeded in the capacity of private prosecutor, the investigating judge failed to order the exhumation of the body of the alleged victim and a new autopsy, at the same time agreeing that the original autopsy “had not been performed in line with all the rules of forensic medicine”; (g) Yugoslav prosecuting authorities failed to hear numerous other witnesses proposed by the author. [7.8] Concerning the existence of reasonable grounds to believe that an act of torture or other illtreatment has been committed, the author, again relying on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, points to “the existence of facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence”. [7.4] Regarding the State party’s contention that the alleged victim had previously attempted to commit suicide, the author indicates that the State party does not substantiate its claim with medical records or police reports, which are usually available in such cases. With regard to other rumours concerning the alleged victim, inter alia that he was addicted to drugs, the author notes that they have always been denied by the family. The author does not know when or whether the four friends of his son were interrogated and neither he nor his lawyer was ever notified of such an interrogation. Moreover, the author notes that three of these witnesses may have been subjected to pressure and influenced for various reasons. [7.9] Concerning the principle of compensation and rehabilitation for an act of torture or other illtreatment, the author mentions that an effective remedy entails also the payment of compensation. [7.10] The author stresses that, at the time of his submission, five years had already elapsed since his son’s death. He contends that, notwithstanding strong indication that grave police brutality had caused the death of Milan Ristic, the Yugoslav authorities have failed to conduct a prompt, impartial and comprehensive investigation able to lead to the identification and punishment of those responsible, and have thus failed to provide the author with any redress. [7.5] Concerning the obligation to investigate incidents of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the author refers to the jurisprudence of the Committee in the case Encarnación Blanco Abad v. Spain (CAT/C/20/D/59/1996), where the Committee observed that “under article 12 of the Convention, the authorities have the obligation to proceed to an investigation ex officio, wherever there are reasonable grounds to believe that acts of torture or ill-treatment have been committed and whatever the origin of the suspicion”. He also refers to the decision in the case Henri Unai Parot v. Spain (CAT/C/14/D/6/1990), according to which the obligation of a prompt and impartial investigation exists even when torture has merely been alleged by the victim, without the existence of a formal complaint. The same jurisprudence is confirmed by [7.11] Relying on a significant amount of sources, the author explains that police brutality in Yugoslavia is systematic and considers that public prosecutors are not independent and rarely institute criminal proceedings against police officers accused of violence and/or misconduct towards citizens. In such cases, the action is very often limited to a request for information directed to the police authorities alone and the use of dilatory tactics is common. [7.12] Finally, the author specifically refers to the most recent examination of the periodic report submitted by Yugoslavia to the Committee and the latter’s subsequent concluding observations, in 68