CAT/C/53/D/321/2007 5.3 The complainants have provided the Committee with copies of press releases issued by Amnesty International on 9 January 20072 and 15 January 20073 in which it expresses its concern about a series of violent raids in which hundreds of people — including women, minors, refugees and asylum seekers — were rounded up and forcibly displaced to the border with Algeria, where they were abandoned in the middle of the desert without any food or water. Committee’s decision on admissibility 6.1 On 4 November 2009, the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication. The Committee ascertained, as required under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter had not been and was not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 The Committee noted that the complainants were protesting the treatment to which they claim to have been subjected at the hands of the security forces from the time that the latter broke into their lodgings in Rabat until the time that the complainants were abandoned in the middle of the desert near the Algerian border. It further noted that they were arguing that such treatment was in breach of article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The complainants also contended that, during that time, they were not allowed to take any legal action to challenge their expulsion, notwithstanding the provisions of Act No. 2-03 on the entry and residence of foreign nationals in Morocco and on illegal emigration and immigration. The Committee also noted that the State party challenged the admissibility of the communication on the grounds that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, given that no complaint had been lodged with a national court concerning the events discussed in the communication. The Committee noted that the complainants’ counsel had explained why the complainants had not been able to appeal the expulsion. However, counsel had not indicated whether any legal action had been initiated later on, after the complainants had come back into Moroccan territory from the border. And if no such action in respect of the ill-treatment had been initiated, counsel had failed to provide an explanation as to why not. Under these circumstances, the Committee considered that the requirement that all available domestic remedies must be exhausted, stipulated in article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, had not been met. The Committee therefore concluded that the part of the communication containing claims referring to article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention was inadmissible. 6.3 However, the Committee considered that the reported events raised issues which should be analysed in the light of article 3 of the Convention in order to determine whether or not the complainants’ expulsion to Algeria had taken place under conditions that would ensure the observance of this provision. Consequently, the Committee declared the complaint admissible insofar as it raised issues with respect to article 3 of the Convention. The Committee’s decision was communicated to both parties. Additional information from the parties 7. On 3 December 2009, following its decision on admissibility, the Committee asked the State party to submit observations by 3 February 2010 on the merits of the communication with regard to the issues raised under article 3 of the Convention. Reminders were sent to the State party on 28 February 2011, 16 June 2011, 19 June 2012 and 21 January 2013, but the State party did not submit any observations to the Committee. 2 3 6 Amnesty International, European Union press release MDE 29/001/2007 “EU: Respond to migrants abuse in Morocco”, 9 January 2007. Amnesty International, European Union press release MDE 29/002/2007 “JHA: EU should not give licence to abuse of migrants”, 15 January 2007. GE.15-00382