CAT/C/42/D/261/2005 Page 15 5.7 With regard to the duty to investigate under article 12, the complainant submitted that no internal report by the State party’s organs and bodies describing an investigation of the events of 8 June 2000 had been made available to the complainant at any point during the domestic proceedings. As such, he had no input in this internal investigation, no ability to examine testimonial or other evidence provided by the police, no opportunity to confront the plainclothes officers who might have been interviewed nor ensure that all the implicated officers were interviewed. Lastly, the complainant noted that the State party continued to withhold the report of the Internal Affairs Control Section from him and the Committee. He referred to the Committee’s jurisprudence recognizing that the state’s failure to inform the complainant about whether an internal investigation was being conducted and of its results effectively prevents the complainant from pursuing a private prosecution and thus violates the State party’s obligations under article 12.22 Supplementary submissions from the State party 6. In a further submission dated 16 November 2005, the State party transmitted a note from the Public Prosecutor’s Office, containing similar arguments to those submitted in the State party’s observations of 23 May 2005. In addition, the State party challenged the complainant’s allegation that a civil lawsuit would not have had a deterrent effect on the perpetration of the criminal offence of abuse of authority.23 The publication in the media of a court’s judgement directing the State to compensate for the acts that had been committed by the officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs would have probably led the Ministry to take internal disciplinary sanctions. The State party also disagreed with the complainant’s statement that civil proceedings take longer than criminal proceedings. The Sate party cited the example of the case of Milan Ristic24 where a civil action was initiated after a criminal action and the court ordered the State to compensate the family of the victim while the criminal investigation was still pending. The State party concluded that the judicial authorities acted in accordance with domestic legislation and the Convention. Nothing more could be done without a more active collaboration of the complainant or his counsel with the public prosecutor. Decision of the Committee on admissibility 7.1 On 23 November 2006 the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication. It took note of the arguments advanced by the complainant and his assertion that he had exhausted domestic remedies. The Committee also noted that the State party had disputed this fact and provided a detailed description of the legal avenues available to the injured party to exercise its right to compensation through the institution of criminal, civil and administrative proceedings. It also took note of the State party’s argument that the civil lawsuit filed under the objective responsibility provision of the Contracts and Torts Law was a more effective procedure to obtain redress than the criminal procedure. In this regard, the Committee considered that the State party’s failure to initiate ex officio an investigation into the complainant’s allegations and to reveal the identity of the plainclothes officers present during the incident, thus permitting the 22 Dragan Dimitrijevic v. Serbia and Montenegro, Communication No. 207/2002, Views adopted on 24 November 2004, paragraph 5.4. 23 See paragraph 5.2 above. 24 Milan Ristic v. Yugoslavia, Communication No. 113/1998, Views adopted on 11 May 2001.