CAT/C/52/D/477/2011 for in article 66 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which covers police custody in terrorism cases. 4.2 On 24 December 2010, the complainant was brought before the competent investigating judge at the Rabat Court of Appeal. According to the record of the hearing, the complainant did not complain of having been tortured, nor did he ask to be examined by a doctor. He merely affirmed that he had become a member of the jihadist movement in Morocco in 1992. During the second hearing before the judge, on 18 January 2011, neither the complainant nor his lawyer made a complaint of torture, and they did not appeal the judge’s decision. On 3 March 2011, the complainant was brought before the Rabat Court of Appeal. In May 2011, he lodged a complaint concerning acts of torture with the Minister of Justice; the complaint was referred to the public prosecutor’s office for investigation. 4.3 On 15 September 2011, the complainant’s lawyer applied for the police report to be declared invalid on the basis that the statements of the complainant that were contained in the report had been made as a result of torture. The application was rejected by the Court. On 27 October 2011 and the complainant was convicted under articles 293, 294 and 295 of the Criminal Code (criminal association and assistance in crime) and article 218-1, paragraph 9 (participation in an association formed, or in an agreement entered into, for the purposes of preparing or committing acts of terrorism), of the Code. He was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. He filed an appeal against this judgement. 4.4 The State party maintained that the communication was inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention because the complainant had submitted a communication to the Human Rights Committee against Spain in respect of the same facts. Secondly, he had not exhausted all domestic remedies, since his appeal was still being examined by the Court of Appeal. Once that Court had reached a decision, the complainant could still appeal under article 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Furthermore, the complaint addressed to the Minister of Justice by the complainant in May 2011 remained under investigation. Completing the investigation would take some time, particularly since the complainant had not revealed the identities of the persons who had reportedly participated in the acts of torture. The Court had recently issued orders for the complainant to be examined by a doctor in order to verify his allegations of torture. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s submission 5.1 On 28 March 2012, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. 5.2 The complainant maintains that the complaint filed with the Human Rights Committee is not the same as the one before the Committee against Torture. He had submitted a communication to the Human Rights Committee against Spain in order to prevent his extradition to Morocco, owing to the risk of being subjected to torture. The present complaint, on the other hand, concerns the events that took place in Morocco. 5.3 With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the complainant asserts that there is no procedure in Morocco whereby an individual who complains of having been tortured can compel the State to conduct an impartial and speedy investigation. The lodging of such a complaint has no effect, either de jure or de facto, on the progress of criminal proceedings that are brought based on evidence alleged, in all likelihood, to have been obtained through torture. There is no procedure available to the complainant for suspending the criminal proceedings initiated against him pending a proper investigation of his complaint. The complainant has no such domestic remedy available to him. In this regard, it must be noted that, in its judgement, the Court rejected the application to have the 6 GE.14-06421