CAT/C/42/D/261/2005 Page 16 complainant to take over the prosecution, rendered the application of a remedy that may bring, in the particular circumstances of the present case, effective and sufficient redress to the complainant effectively impossible. Moreover, having unsuccessfully exhausted one remedy one should not be required, for the purposes of the article 22, paragraph 5 (b) of the Convention, to exhaust alternative legal avenues that would have been directed essentially to the same end and would in any case not have offered better chances of success. In these circumstances, the Committee concluded that it was not precluded by the requirements of article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, from considering the communication. 7.2 The Committee noted the complainant’s allegations that the plainclothes policemen used disproportionate force, resulting in light personal injury, and that subsequently he had been unable to obtain redress. The State party contended that the policemen tried to act in accordance with the standards governing the intervention against a large number of people and endeavoured to apply force discriminately. The Committee considered, however, that this claim had been sufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility and should be considered on its merits. 7.3 The Committee against Torture therefore decided that the communication was admissible as far as it raised issues under articles 12, 13, 14 and 16 of the Convention. State party’s merits observations 8.1 On 19 June 2008, the State party submitted that the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia, the CPC, the Code of Obligations and the Manual on Methods of Assistance Provided by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of 2 December 1997 (Manual) were applicable to the present case. In particular: (a) Under article 153 of the CPC, in force when the events in question took place, the Public Prosecutor rejects the criminal offence report if there is no basis for the institution of a formal judicial investigation. If the Public Prosecutor is unable to assess from the criminal offence report whether the charges contained therein are probable, or if the data from the criminal offence report or police notification do not provide sufficient grounds for issuing a ruling on the opening of the investigation, the Public Prosecutor requests the police to gather necessary information and undertake other measures, if he is unable to undertake the necessary measures proprio motu or through other government authorities. If he concludes that the reported offence is not a criminal offence subject to formal judicial investigation, the Public Prosecutor rejects the criminal offence report. The CPL and the CPC allow the injured party to take over criminal prosecution if the Public Prosecutor rejects the complaint. Furthermore, under article 259, paragraph 3, of the CPC, if the investigating judge decides that the investigation is concluded, he informs the injured party, as prosecutor or private prosecutor, of this fact and notifies the injured party that it may file an indictment with the court, i.e. a private suit, otherwise it would be deemed that the injured party has waived prosecution. (b) Under article 103, section 6 and 7 (limitations on criminal prosecution), of the Criminal Code, criminal prosecution may not be instituted after three years from the time of committing a criminal offence punishable by more than one year’s imprisonment; and of two years from the time of committing a criminal offence punishable by less that one year’s imprisonment or fine. Under article 104, section 6 (course and suspension of