are found on its territory, unless the suspects are extradited.105 As stated by the United Nations Human Rights Committee: “State Parties must ensure that those responsible are brought to justice. As with failure to investigate, failure to bring to justice perpetrators of such violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. These obligations arise notably in respect of those violations recognized as criminal under either domestic or international law, such as torture and similar cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (article 7), summary and arbitrary killing (article 6) …”.106 There are no express provisions on the right and concomitant duty of states to try those responsible of torture expeditiously. As was determined by the Human Rights Committee in Andreu v. Colombia:107 “… the Covenant does not provide a right for individuals to require that the State criminally prosecute another person…The Committee nevertheless considers that the State party is under a duty to investigate thoroughly alleged violations of human rights, and in particular forced disappearances of persons and violations of the right to life, and to prosecute criminally, try and punish those held responsible for such violations. This duty applies a fortiori in cases in which the perpetrators of such violations have been identified.” As held by the Human Rights Committee in Rajapakse v. Sri Lanka in respect of a torture case: “Expedition and effectiveness are particularly important in the adjudication of cases involving torture. The general information provided by the State party on the workload of the domestic courts would appear to indicate that the High Court proceedings and, thus, the author's Supreme Court fundamental rights case will not be determined for some time. The Committee considers that the State party may not avoid its responsibilities under the Covenant with the argument that the domestic courts are dealing with the matter, when it is clear that the remedies relied upon by the State party have been prolonged and would appear to be ineffective. For these reasons, the Committee finds that the State party has violated article 2, paragraph 3, in connection with 7 of the Covenant.”108 Courts have also considered cases in which the delay in the proceedings impinged upon statutes of limitation. In such cases the delays were so significant that they resulted in a denial of justice to victims.109 2.4. The absence of effective investigations, prosecutions and punishment as a form of torture or ill-treatment in its own right The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has held in several cases of disappearances that the lack of effective investigations and the impunity which results constitutes a violation of the right to humane treatment of the next of kin. This is due to the impact on the security and 105 See in particular Articles 4-9 of the UN Convention against Torture. 106 UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment 31, para.18 107 Federico Andreu v. Colombia, para.8.6. 108 Rajapakse v. Sri Lanka, para.9.5. See also case of Dingiri Banda v. Sri Lanka, para.7.3. where the HRC found that proceedings in a torture case that were ongoing after more than seven years were unduly prolonged and ineffective, also taking into consideration that the state party did not provide any timeframe for the consideration of the case. 109 See in particular the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Montero-Aranguren et al v Venezuela, para.141; Trujiloo-Oroza v Bolivia (Merits), para.102 and Las Palmeras v Colombia (Merits), para.69. 24