CAT/C/52/D/477/2011 authorities provide a satisfactory response to such a complaint by launching a prompt and impartial investigation.17 10.7 The complainant claims that he is a victim of a violation of article 15 of the Convention, as he was convicted on the basis of a case mainly consisting of a “confession” that was obtained under torture during his time in custody and subsequently retracted. 10.8 The Committee recalls that, pursuant to this article, the State party must ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture is not invoked as evidence in any proceedings. From a reading of the Court of Appeal rulings, it is clear that the complainant’s confession had a decisive impact on the conviction. The Committee takes note of the complainant’s allegations concerning the torture to which he was subjected while in custody and notes that the complainant was examined on 20 September 2012 by an independent doctor who accompanied the Special Rapporteur on torture during his visit to Morocco and who concluded that most of the marks found on the complainant’s body and the symptoms experienced by the complainant were consistent with his allegations; that, as previously stated, the State party has failed in its duty to proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation into the allegations of torture; and that the Court of Appeal did not give serious consideration to the allegations of torture when convicting the complainant on the basis of his confession, even going so far as to deny that those allegations had been made during the proceedings. On the basis of this evidence, the Committee considers that the State party has breached its obligations under article 15 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that, in its concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Morocco, it expressed concern about the fact that confessions are commonly used in the State party’s current system of investigation as evidence for prosecutions and convictions and that convictions in many criminal cases, including terrorism cases, are based on confessions, thus creating conditions that may provide more scope for the torture and ill-treatment of suspects.18 11. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, is of the view that the information before it discloses a violation of article 2, paragraph 1, and articles 11, 12, 13 and 15 of the Convention. 12. Pursuant to rule 118, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure (CAT/C/3/Rev.6), the Committee urges the State party to inform it, within 90 days from the date of transmittal of the present decision, of the measures that it has taken in accordance with the observations set forth above. These measures must include the initiation of an impartial and in-depth investigation into the complainant’s allegations. Such an investigation must include the conduct of medical examinations in line with the Istanbul Protocol. [Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the French text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] 17 18 16 Communication No. 376/2009, Bendib v. Algeria, Committee Decision of 8 November 2013, para. 6.6. CAT/C/MAR/CO/4, para. 17. GE.14-06421