CAT/C/53/D/321/2007 8. On 24 April 2013, the complainants’ counsel reiterated his initial claims and pointed out that, in accordance with the State party’s obligations under the Convention against Torture, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the State party should have considered the complainants’ asylum applications and taken a decision in that regard before deporting them. In addition, the State party should not have expelled them in a desert area on the Algerian border, given the many dangers that they would face there and the inability of the State party to ensure their survival. 9. On 22 September 2014, the State party was once again invited to provide clarification regarding the current situation of the complainants and to indicate whether they had been allowed to stay in Morocco or if they had left the country. 10.1 On 23 October 2014, the State party indicated that the names of the complainants did not appear in the expulsion order issued by the administrative and judicial authorities in respect of 230 sub-Saharan immigrants in an irregular situation nor in the records on foreign nationals present in the territory of the State party at the time of the events in question. Investigations conducted by the authorities regarding the sub-Saharan community indicated that the complainants were not among that group. Information from the UNHCR office in Morocco and the Office of Refugees and Stateless Persons of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation confirmed that the names of the complainants did not appear in their databases. 10.2 The State party points out that, as a result, the Moroccan authorities are unable to open a proper investigation concerning either the individuals themselves or their fate, especially since no reliable, updated information has been provided by their lawyer and since no member of the group has taken action or alleged any ill-treatment on the part of law enforcement officers. In this regard, the State party notes that, when the Committee took its decision on the admissibility of the case in November 2008, it had expressed disapproval of the fact that the lawyer had not indicated whether any complaint had been lodged regarding the alleged ill-treatment and that, if no such complaint had been filed, he had not explained why not. 10.3 In addition, the State party provides information on the introduction of a new migration policy in September 2013 that is more humane and in conformity with its international obligations. For example, on an exceptional basis, the State party began a drive in January 2014 to regularize the status of migrants in an irregular situation; that campaign is to be concluded in December 2014. Thousands of people have already begun the necessary application process. Moreover, as part of an effort to regularize the status of asylum seekers who have been recognized by UNHCR, it has processed the cases of 424 individuals from various African countries. None of the names listed in the complaint appears on the list of asylum seekers or on the list of persons in an irregular situation who are applying for a residence permit. The State party asserts that the above-mentioned information demonstrates its good faith and calls into question the credibility of the information submitted to the Committee. Consideration of the merits 11.1 The Committee has considered the present complaint in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 11.2 Firstly, the Committee finds it regrettable that an excessive amount of time has elapsed before the consideration of the present complaint and notes that both parties share the blame for this. GE.15-00382 7