CAT/C/52/D/477/2011 “confession” declared inadmissible on the pretext that the case file contained no reference to allegations of torture.3 Furthermore, some of the reported violations of the Convention are definitive and could not be “made good” by acquitting the complainant or acknowledging the cruel treatment inflicted on him. 5.4 The complainant expresses concern about the progress of the criminal proceedings initiated in response to his complaint of torture. When he referred to that matter during his trial, the public prosecutor stated that no complaint had been lodged. After the complainant provided proof of submission, the judges maintained that the complaint did not affect the trial. In the meantime, the public prosecutor’s office dismissed the complaint, and the complainant was ultimately sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. The complainant had also brought criminal indemnification proceedings but still had no information as to the outcome. Then, in the context of the proceedings before the Committee, the complainant learned that the investigation into his initial complaint had been reopened. However, given the failure to conduct any inquiries for six months, the complainant feared that the “reopening” of the investigation was a mere sham. He advances as proof the conditions surrounding the only two investigative procedures conducted — namely, his questioning by the police officers responsible for the investigation and his forensic medical examination — which were subsequently the subject of a complaint to the Prosecutor-General at the Rabat Court of Appeal and the Minister of Justice. 5.5 In December 2011, the complainant was questioned by police officers in plain clothes who did not produce badges to identify themselves, indicate to which service they belonged or specify under which procedure they were questioning him. The questioning was conducted in French but the transcript was typed up directly in Arabic, without the presence of an interpreter, which, however, is indispensible for any procedural formality involving the complainant. The police officers presented documents for him to sign, but, since they were in Arabic, he refused to do so. He did not receive a copy of his statement. 5.6 As to the forensic medical examination, the complainant was taken on 8 January 2012, without prior notice, to a hospital located a short distance from the prison.4 There he met a woman who introduced herself as a forensic doctor and who was accompanied by two male doctors. None of them identified themselves by name. The complainant gave a detailed account of the ill-treatment to which he had allegedly been subjected and he was examined.5 The interview and examination took place in the presence of five unidentified persons in plain clothes. A radiographic examination of the complainant’s left shoulder was performed in the same establishment. The complainant was then transported to another facility for an ear, nose and throat examination, which did not take place because the equipment was not working. No further tests were conducted thereafter. The complainant 3 4 5 GE.14-06421 See footnote 2. This was the Bin Sana Hospital in Rabat, according to the report drawn up by the Office of the Prosecutor-General. According to the medical report, he stated that he had been “assaulted repeatedly with a blunt instrument and slapped and kicked while bound at the wrists and ankles and blindfolded. He further states that police officers penetrated his anus with a glass bottle. Mr. Ali Aarrass reports that, during the torture, he experienced generalized pain, ringing in his ears and bleeding from his left ear and his anus, and that he lost consciousness several times, requiring him to be attended by a doctor, who injected him intravenously in the crook of each arm twice at an interval of two days, with an unidentified drug, before administering an intramuscular injection in his left buttock. He states that he also suffered a cigarette burn on the ulnar side of his right hand, which resulted in blistering”. The conclusion of the report is as follows: “The clinical examination of Mr. Ali Aarrass performed on 8 December 2011 (sic) revealed no sign of injuries that could have been caused by the acts of torture that Mr. Aarrass alleges took place during his pretrial detention.” 7