CAT/C/52/D/477/2011 requesting him to authorize a forensic medical examination by Moroccan and foreign experts. 2.7 The complainant’s trial took place before the Rabat Court of Appeal, hearing it in Salé as a terrorism case. The complainant appeared before the Court on 22 April 2011 and 15 September 2011. During the second hearing, his lawyers raised the procedural irregularities in his case, notably the ill-treatment that he had suffered. The Court, however, rejected all their motions, including the application to have the statements made by the complainant while in police custody declared invalid on the grounds that they had been obtained under duress. It also refused to defer consideration of the case pending an effective investigation into the allegations of torture. 2.8 The hearing before the Court took place on 24 November 2011. The complainant was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment for participating in a terrorist group and obtaining arms for the group. According to the complainant, there is no objective evidence pointing to his involvement in any terrorist group and the case against him consists essentially of the “confession” which was obtained as a result of torture and subsequently retracted.2 The Court, however, deemed these initial statements, which were drafted in Arabic without the assistance of an interpreter, to be valid because they were reportedly signed by the complainant, even though the Court itself had recourse to the services of an interpreter during the hearings. The Court maintained that the issue of torture had not been raised, although a request for an expert medical examination had been addressed to the Minister of Justice in February 2011 and a complaint of torture, subsequently dismissed, had been lodged in May 2011. 2.9 In Salé II Prison, the complainant does not enjoy confidential interviews with his lawyers, since there is always a man in plain clothes nearby who can hear their conversations. The lawyers have filed complaints about this matter, notably in letters dated 18 November 2011 addressed to the Minister of Justice and to the Director of the Department for Prison Administration and Reintegration, but have received no reply. Concerning his conditions of detention, the complainant asserts that he was held in complete isolation for several months, during which time he could not correspond with his lawyers, his family or his relatives. He was never informed of the rules applied to him or of the grounds for the detention regime, nor was he told of the reasons for the gradual relaxation of this regime. The complaint 3.1 The complainant considers that the acts outlined herein constitute violations of article 2, paragraph 1, and articles 11, 12, 13 and 15 of the Convention. 2 The judgement reads as follows: “The defence has argued that the defendant was subjected to torture and coercion. Given that there is no reference in the case file to indicate that the defendant or his lawyers raised the issue of torture during the investigation or requested an expert medical examination to prove the torture, the argument is demonstrably unfounded and must be rejected.” The judgement further states: “Whereas the defendant has denied in detail the accusations against him, before this Court and during the initial hearing. “Whereas these denials are contradicted by the defendant’s confession, during the preliminary phase, to all the charges against him, an unequivocal confession describing in detail the acts imputed to him and containing statements consistent and in agreement with those of defendants A.B. and B.R.B. (…). Whereas this confession, clearly stated before the criminal investigation department, is not open to doubt and is held to constitute valid and sufficient evidence (…).” 4 GE.14-06421