CAT/C/52/D/477/2011 The Committee also recalls its concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Morocco. In that document it noted with concern that under the Anti-Terrorism Act No. 0303 of 2003 access to a lawyer is not permitted until after the sixth day, which places suspects who are being held in custody at greater risk of torture. The Committee added that it is precisely while they cannot communicate with their families and lawyers that suspects are most vulnerable to torture.16 In this context, considering the fact that the complainant was not guaranteed access to legal assistance, particularly during his time in custody, that he had no contact with his family, that his family had no information about his place of detention, that he had no access to a doctor and that he was allegedly forced to sign statements in a language that he does not know well, and in view of the absence of information from the State party challenging those claims, the Committee considers the State party to have failed in its obligations under article 2, paragraph 1, and article 11 of the Convention. 10.4 With regard to articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, the Committee has taken note of the complainant’s allegations that the investigating judge neither launched an inquiry nor ordered a medical examination and refused to take note of his allegations of torture; that, on 11 February 2011, he wrote to the Minister of Justice to request a medical examination by independent experts, a request that was denied; that, on 13 May 2011, he lodged a complaint of torture with the Prosecutor-General at the Court of Appeal, but the complaint was dismissed and then subsequently reactivated; that he was only questioned by the police about his complaint in December 2011 and was only examined by a forensic doctor in January 2012; that his requests for an examination by doctors from an independent institution were denied; and that his request for access to the photographs taken upon his arrival at the prison was also denied. The Committee also takes note of the opinion of two medical doctors that the report produced by the forensic doctor after examining the complainant in January 2012 was not in conformity with the Istanbul Protocol. 10.5 The Committee notes that, notwithstanding the letter which the complainant sent to the Minister of Justice in February 2011, no medical examination was undertaken and, in the context of his criminal complaint, an examination was only undertaken in January 2012, which was more than a year after the alleged events. Moreover, in the context of this complaint, the complainant was only granted a hearing in December 2011 and was not informed at any time prior to that date of the status of the proceedings or even the fact that the proceedings had been reactivated. The Committee also notes that the State party failed to provide any information about the outcome of the investigation and the evidence made available to the authorities; it merely affirmed that the information gathered had been communicated to the complainant. The Committee, furthermore, draws attention to the fact that the Court of Appeal took no account of the claimant’s allegations of torture when deciding to convict him; it even went so far as to deny that the allegations had been made during the proceedings. 10.6 In the light of the above, the Committee considers that there was a failure on the part of the authorities to conduct an investigation and that this was incompatible with the State party’s obligations under article 12 of the Convention to ensure that the authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed. By failing to meet this obligation, the State party has also failed to guarantee the right of the complainant to lodge a complaint in accordance with its responsibilities under article 13 of the Convention, which presupposes that the 16 GE.14-06421 CAT/C/MAR/CO/4, para. 8. 15