CRPD/C/18/D/22/2014 investigates the facts alleged with due diligence and proceeds to punish any persons found responsible in accordance with its duties under both domestic law and the Convention.”8 5.4 The author argues that, in the case of crimes of public action and even in those that may be prosecuted by a private actor, it is not valid to demand the exhaustion of domestic remedies by the victim or the victim’s relatives, for the State party has a duty to maintain public order and therefore to set the criminal law system into motion and to process the matter until the end. The author refers to additional jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, according to which, the obligation to investigate “‘must have an objective and be assumed by the State as its own legal duty, not as a step taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon their offer of proof, without an effective search for the truth by the government.’ In other words, the obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish the persons liable for human rights violations is a non-delegable duty of the State”.9 The author submits that, in his case, the State party failed to conduct effective investigation and prosecution. Rather, it discontinued the investigation before identifying the perpetrators, as domestic jurisdictions usually do in similar cases. 5.5 As regards the State party’s statement that investigations are ongoing to bring his attackers to justice, the author submits that there is no sign of any concrete action taken or of any result of the alleged investigative process. The author has never been contacted and he has never received any information as to the procedures and investigations allegedly under way. 5.6 Regarding the State party’s argument that he should have submitted a human rights petition before the local courts under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, the author submits that such procedure is extremely prolonged. He refers to the jurisprudence of human rights bodies, according to which, there is no need to exhaust unduly prolonged remedies, which by their very nature are ineffective. 10 He also submits that, even if no hard and fast rule exists to establish if remedies are unduly prolonged, human rights bodies usually consider the conduct of the States and the complexity of the case to determine whether the length of time is reasonable.11 The author further submits that applicants can rely on this rule when, as in his case, investigations have been pending for years without any evidence of progress or when judicial proceedings have dragged on for years, or when remedies have been used as “delaying instruments”.12 5.7 The author refers to the petition submitted by persons with albinism who had been victims of acts of violence to the High Court of the United Republic of Tanzania on 20 March 2009 as Miscellaneous Civil Application No 15 of 2009, in accordance with the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act. Section 4 of the Act states that an aggrieved person may apply to the High Court for remedies; the bench in charge of determining the merits of the application shall be composed of three judges (sect. 10). The constitutional petition was submitted with the support of the Legal and Human Rights Centre, Tanzania Albino Society and Tanzania Federation of Disabled Peoples’ Organizations. More than six years later, the matter has still not been heard (see para. 2.6 above). The author argues that that procedure usually leads to undue delay because the limited number of judges in many regional branches of the High Court complicates the formation of the bench. That matter 8 9 10 11 12 See Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, Greco v. Argentina, case No. 11.804, decision of 10 October 2001, para. 51. Ibid., Sequeira Mangas v. Nicaragua, case No. 11.218, conclusions of 18 February 1998, para. 96. See, for example, Human Rights Committee, communication No. 612/1995, Vicente et al. v. Colombia, Views adopted on 29 July 1997; and African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Association of the Victims of Post-electoral Violence and INTERIGHTS v. Cameroon, communication No. 272/03, decision of 25 November 2009. See European Court of Human Rights, Todorov v. Bulgaria, application No. 38299/05, judgment of 5 November 2009, para. 45. See Inter-American Court of Human Rights, “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala, (preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs), judgment of 24 November 2009, para. 119. 5