CAT/C/42/D/261/2005 Page 21 10.4 As to the legal qualification of the treatment to which the complainant was subjected to on 8 June 2000, the Committee considers that the infliction of physical and mental suffering aggravated by the complainant’s particular vulnerability, due to his Roma ethnic origin and unavoidable association with a minority historically subjected to discrimination and prejudice, reaches the threshold of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Committee notes that the complainant and the State party are at odds as to the identity of the persons who caused bodily injury to the complainant and verbally abused him but the parties concur in as much as the presence of the State party’s uniformed policemen (public officials) in the place and at the time in question are concerned. The Committee further notes that the State party did not contest that the complainant has indeed sustained bodily injury and was verbally abused. The Committee recalls that the State party did not claim that the uniformed policemen who were present at the “Antena” settlement at the time when the treatment contrary to article 16 occurred, took steps to protect the complainant and other inhabitants from the abuse and did not produce any evidence that would allow the Committee to deduce that this was the case. 10.5 The Committee considers that, irrespective of whether the persons who had caused bodily injury to the complainant and verbally abused him were or were not public officials, the State party’s authorities who witnessed the events and failed to intervene to prevent the abuse have, at the very least “consented or acquiesced” to it, in the sense of article 16 of the Convention. In this respect, the Committee has reiterated on many occasions its concerns about "inaction by police and law-enforcement officials who fail to provide adequate protection against racially motivated attacks when such groups have been threatened".40 The Committee concludes that there was a violation of article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention by the State party. 10.6 Having considered that the facts on which the complaint is based constitute acts within the meaning of article 16, paragraph 1 of the Convention, the Committee must analyse other allegations of violations of the Convention in the light of that finding. 10.7 Concerning the alleged violation of article 12, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence41 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. In the present case, the Committee notes that, despite the presence of a high number of Roma during the events of 8 June 2000 and the participation of a number of uniformed policemen and of a public works inspector, the exact factual circumstances of the case remain unclear. The Committee is of the view that the State party's failure to inform the complainant of the results of the investigation for almost six years by, inter alia, not providing him with the report of the Internal Affairs Control Section of 2000, nor with names of the persons who caused bodily injury to the complainant and verbally abused him, effectively prevented him from assuming "private prosecution" of his case prior to the expiry of the absolute statute of limitations for 40 See, inter alia, concluding observations on the initial report of Slovakia, CAT A/56/44 (2001), paragraph 104; concluding observations on the second periodic report of the Czech Republic, CAT A/56/44 (2001), paragraph 113 and concluding observations on the second periodic report of Georgia, CAT A/56/44 (2001), paragraph 81. 41 See, inter alia, Encarnacion Blanco Abad v. Spain, Communication No. 59/1996, Views adopted on 14 May 1998, paragraph 8.8.