CAT/C/42/D/261/2005 Page 18 8.6 The State party ends by stating that it will take measures, if the Committee were to conclude that an absolute statute of limitations for criminal prosecution amounts to a violation of article 13 of the Convention, for adequate compensation of non-pecuniary damages in the amount offered to be paid to the complainant ex gratia. This compensation should be in conformity with the practice of domestic and international courts in similar cases. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 9.1 On 12 September 2008, the complainant noted that the State party has changed its argumentation in important respects. Specifically, it now recognises that the CPC was also applicable in the present case, as the complainant had considered from the outset, and accepted his argument that both under the CPL and its successor from March 2002 onwards, the CPC did entrust the prosecutor with the competence and the mandate to fully investigate police illtreatment allegations. 9.2 The complainant agrees that he had the right but not the obligation to initiate a civil action. He reiterates that civil remedies were not too considered as adequate or effective in his case and hence did not have to be exhausted. He also notes that the Committee has already addressed this issue in its admissibility decision, where the Committee held that this alleged “failure” to have recourse to civil remedies did not amount to non-exhaustion.28 9.3 The complainant further notes that, by referring to the Manual29 the State party effectively implies that plainclothes policemen could not have taken part in the police operation. Furthermore, the State party argued, for the first time throughout the proceedings both before the domestic courts and the Committee, that the perpetrators of the complainant’s ill-treatment were not in fact policemen but rather civilians.30 The complainant notes that until now, the State party has not referred to a group of “civilians” being present during the eviction and conceded that police officers did indeed resort to the use of legitimate force against Roma. The complainant refers to the same testimony of Sergeant J. and Construction inspector of, respectively, 10 April and 17 July 2002, which was quoted by the State party, but concludes that it is replete with reference to plainclothes policemen. 31 The complainant therefore dismisses the State party’s argument to the effect that under the applicable legal framework, only uniformed police officers could take part in an eviction. In this respect, the complainant submits that state authorities are responsible in cases where their agents acted ultra vires. 9.4 The complainant notes that even if, hypothetically, the new version of events as formulated by the State party is accepted, then the State’s responsibility remains engaged. Under article 16 of the Convention, “[e]ach State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity (emphasis added).” The complainant points out that the State party did not produce 28 See paragraph 7.1 above. See paragraph 8.1 (d) above. 30 See paragraph 8.2 above. 31 See, for example, paragraphs 2.7, 2.10, 2.13. 29