CAT/C/52/D/477/2011 the region, consultation reports … and the allegations of abuse … Any shortcomings in the psychological evaluation of a person claiming to have been tortured is a serious failing and an unacceptable lapse on the part of the expert in terms of the standards set out in the Istanbul Protocol.” Dr. B. concludes that the report in question “is very brief, provides little information, was not prepared in accordance with the proper procedures and fails to meet the accepted international minimum standards set out in detail in the Istanbul Protocol for medical evaluations of persons who claim to have been tortured.” 6.5 “A complete physical and psychological medical re-evaluation of Mr. Ali Aarrass should therefore be undertaken by physicians with experience in investigating and documenting claims of torture. These examiners should be provided with the time and the discretionary authority to make use of any and all methods of medical investigation, diagnostic tests and other consultations as may be needed to arrive at sound, reasoned conclusions.” 6.6 According to the complainant, in accordance with the principle of the right of response, a thorough expert medical evaluation is essential in order to gather concrete evidence concerning his claims of torture. This process would entail providing advance notice to the complainant and his counsel of the arrangements made for doctors’ visits, allowing the complainant to be assisted by his lawyer and a medical consultant on those occasions, giving the complainant access to the results of his clinical tests, and carrying out any supplementary tasks and examinations requested by the complainant’s defence counsel with a view to obtaining a complete analysis of his state of health and his claims. 6.7 When appearing before the court on 18 June 2012, the complainant repeated his request for an effective and independent inquiry into his claims of torture and, in particular, for a rigorous expert medical evaluation. Because he felt that a thorough inquiry was called for, the complainant submitted an application for the institution of criminal indemnification proceedings to the presiding judge of the court of first instance of Rabat9 on 18 September 2012. This application was declared inadmissible on 28 January 2013, with the judge basing his decision on the fact that the complainant had not identified his torturers and had not specified the articles of the Criminal Code under which the acts of torture in question constituted a criminal offence. 6.8 The complainant has informed the Committee that he is the target of continual acts of intimidation in prison. His lawyers are not always informed when hearings are to be held and, as a result, he sometimes has to appear without counsel. He is not provided with proper health care, and he is prevented from corresponding with his lawyers and his family. After being held in total isolation for months (no communication whatsoever with fellow prisoners or guards; no reading materials, radio or television; he was allowed in the exercise yard only when no one else was there; etc.), he was placed in a cell with four people convicted on drug charges who were particularly rough and abrasive. Twice he has been assaulted by another prisoner without any guard stepping in to protect him. In July 2012, with no reason being given, he was placed in isolation again and allowed to go out into an individual exercise yard for just one hour per day. He was returned to a regular cell shortly before the Special Rapporteur on torture visited Morocco. After he met the Special Rapporteur on 20 September 2012,10 the complainant was threatened by the deputy director 9 10 GE.14-06421 The complainant asked the court of appeal to grant a stay of the ruling pending the outcome of the investigation. In a letter from the Special Rapporteur to the Moroccan authorities which was made public on 31 May 2013, the Special Rapporteur indicated that the independent forensic physician who had accompanied him to Morocco had performed an external physical examination of the complainant and concluded that most of the marks that he had found were consistent with the complainant’s claims 11