survivors find it difficult to challenge the decision of the investigation body or prosecutor to close the investigation for lack of evidence.26 The United Nations Committee against Torture, in its concluding observations on Russia’s state party report of 2007, expressed its concern about: “The insufficient level of independence of the Procuracy…and the failure to initiate and conduct prompt, impartial and effective investigations into allegations of torture or ill-treatment.”27 Torture survivors and their relatives have reported a heightened state of anxiety and health problems at least partly attributed to the ongoing uncertainty about their pending cases.28 Many have lost faith and trust in the authorities and bodies meant to dispense justice within the system. In Serbia, investigating judges have often limited their investigations to requesting information from the police without taking into consideration any other evidence that might be available. In cases where investigations have been undertaken, they have either been unduly prolonged or have often been half-hearted.29 In many cases, inaction and obstruction result in delays that lead to the expiry of the statutes of limitation by the time the charges over police maltreatment are finally filed in court. In the Ristic30 and Nikolić31 cases, state authorities failed at the initial stage of the inquiry, to undertake further independent investigations to establish the facts and the role of the police in the events. Shortcomings were also apparent in the Danilo Dimitrijevic,32 Jovica Dimitrov33 and Dragan Dimitrijevic34 cases that related to police torture, including the failure of the State to investigate promptly and fairly as in the Dimitrov and Dragan Dimitrijevi, taking 34 months and 23 months respectively before any investigation was initiated. The Prosecutor’s Office has repeatedly failed to take any action at all or notify the complainant of the dismissal of the complaint. Since there is no time limit for the Prosecution in deciding whether to undertake a prosecution, and since the institution of a private prosecution in such cases is directly dependant on the said notification of the complainant, the inaction on the part of the Prosecutor’s Office prevents torture victims from using the remedies envisaged by law.35 26 This paragraph is based on the assessment of the Nizhny Novgorod Committee against Torture and REDRESS, in Taking Complaints of Torture Seriously, Rights of Victims and Responsibilities of Authorities, September 2004, pp.48 et seq. 27 Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture: The Russian Federation, UN Doc. CAT/C/RUS/CO/4, 6 February 2007, para.12. 28 Based on the result of a series of interviews carried by a member of the NGO Nizhny Novgorod Committee against Torture in August 2007. 29 See Written Comments of the Humanitarian Law Center concerning FR Yugoslavia For Consideration by the United Nations Committee against Torture at its 27th Session, 12-23 November, 2001, 6 November 2001, Articles 11 and 12. 30 UN Doc. CAT/C/26/D/113/1998. 31 UN Doc. CAT/C/35/D/174/2000. 32 UN Doc. CAT/C/35/D/172/2000. 33 UN Doc. CAT/C/34/D/171/2000. 34 UN Doc. CAT/C/33/D/207/2002. 35 REDRESS and Belgrade Centre for Human Rights, Action against Torture, A practical guide to the Istanbul Protocol for lawyers in Serbia, September 2007, pp.30, 31, and Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Serbia, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/81/SEMO, 12 August 2004, paras.14, 15. 13