the delay in determining the latter is relevant for its assessment of whether the author's rights under the Covenant were violated. It notes the State party's argument that the author is currently availing himself of domestic remedies. The Committee observes that the criminal investigation was not initiated by the Attorney General until over three months after the incident, despite the fact that the author had to be hospitalised, was unconscious for 15 days, and had a medical report describing his injuries, which was presented to the Magistrates Court on 17 May 2002. While noting that both parties accuse each other of responsibility for certain delays in the hearing of this case, it would appear that inadequate time has been assigned for its hearing, viewed in light of the numerous court appearances held over a period of two years, since the indictments were served (four years since the alleged incident), and the lack of significant progress (receipt of evidence from one out of 10 witnesses). The State party's argument on the High Court's large workload does not excuse it from complying with its obligations under the Covenant. The delay is further compounded by the State party's failure to provide any timeframe for the consideration of the case, despite its claim that, following directions from the Attorney General, Counsel for the prosecution requested the trial judge to expedite the case.” In India, complaints about torture and deaths in custody resulting from torture are in most cases not given due attention because of the closed and protective police culture. Upon receiving complaints, the police often fail to prepare a first information report. For investigations or prosecutions, evidence is generally difficult to obtain because the alleged perpetrators and members of the police close to them refrain from co-operating, victims find it hard to identify the persons responsible and co-prisoners tend to be too afraid to become prosecution witnesses. Independent medical examinations of detainees and victims are often not carried out immediately or adequately, if at all, in disregard of existing Supreme Court directions and NHRC guidelines. As a result, investigations in torture cases are often unduly prolonged, ultimately resulting in a lack of prosecution.17 In Israel, the investigation of complaints against soldiers in torture cases is conducted by the Military Police Investigation Unit (MPIU) subject to prior authorisation by the Judge Advocate General’s Office. According to a recent report by Israeli human rights organisations: “a considerable period of time passes between the filing of the complaint and the Judge Advocate General’s Office’s order to open an investigation, making it difficult for MPIU investigators to conduct an effective investigation: no physical evidence remains in the field, it is hard to locate eyewitnesses and the soldiers involved, witnesses who are located and are willing to give a statement have difficulty recalling the details of the event, and so forth.” 18 The report details a case of a beating of a Palestinian at a checkpoint and possible illtreatment in custody, in which it took four and a half months to give the order to investigate and another two years to interview the complainant. Almost four years after the complaint was lodged, “the Judge Advocate General’s Office informed HaMoked that it had been decided to close the file since ‘the soldiers involved in the alleged incident were not located.”19 17 See REDRESS/Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, Responses to Human Rights Violations: The Implementation of the Right to Reparation for Torture in India, Nepal and Sri Lanka, February 2003, pp.21, 22 and Asian Human Rights Commission, The State of Human Rights in Eleven Asian Nations-2006, December 2006, pp.85, 86. 18 Hamoked/B’Tselem, Absolute Prohibition: The torture and ill-treatment of Palestinian detainees, May 2007, p.83. 19 Ibid. 10