CAT/C/42/D/261/2005 Page 10 more likely to constitute ‘degrading or inhuman treatment or punishment’ when motivated by racial animus and/or coupled with racial epithets”. 3.4 The complainant submits that in violation of article 12, read in conjunction with article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Serbian authorities failed to conduct a prompt, impartial, and comprehensive investigation into the incident at issue, capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible, despite reasonable grounds to believe that an act of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment had been. He refers to the Committee’s findings in Abad v. Spain 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.” The Committee also found that “a criminal investigation must seek both to determine the nature and circumstances of the alleged acts and to establish the identity of any person who might have been involved therein”.15 In order to comply with the requirements of article 12, read in conjunction with article 16, paragraph 1, the State party’s authorities had to conduct not a pro forma investigation but an investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible. Following the Deputy Public Prosecutor’s decision of 19 April 2001 to terminate the investigation, as prescribed by law, the victim had the right to take over the prosecution of the case and finally lodge the indictment. However, the failure of the prosecutor and the investigating judge to identify the perpetrators prevented the complainant from exercising this right. 3.5 The complainant also alleges a violation of article 13, read in conjunction with article 16, paragraph 1, because his right to complain and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by the competent authorities was violated. He submits that the ‘right to complain’ implies not just a legal possibility to do so but also the right to an effective remedy for the harm suffered. 3.6 The complainant finally invokes a violation of article 14, read together with article 16, paragraph 1, because of the absence of redress and of fair and adequate compensation. He refers to the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence on the interpretation of the term “effective remedies” that should be afforded at the domestic level, stating that whenever an individual has an arguable claim that he has been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment by the police or such agents of the state, the notion of an effective remedy entails, in addition to the payment of compensation where appropriate, a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible.16 The State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 In a submission dated 23 May 2005, the State party challenged the complainant’s claim that the Fourth Municipal Public Prosecutor did not take any steps in response to the complaint submitted by the HLC on 12 August 2000 until 19 April 2001. The State party submitted that 15 Encarnación Blanco Abad v. Spain, Communication No. 59/1996, Views adopted on 14 May 1998, paras. 8.2 and 8.8. See also, Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, Judgment of 28 October 1998, para.102. 16 Assenov v. Bulgaria, supra note 15, para.102.