CAT/C/52/D/477/2011 arrest and trial of the complainant have been brought to the attention of a number of different special procedures of the Human Rights Council, including the Special Rapporteur on torture and the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. However, the Committee considers that extra-conventional procedures or mechanisms established by the Commission on Human Rights or the Human Rights Council, whose mandates are to examine and report publicly on human rights situations in specific countries or territories or on cases of widespread human rights violations worldwide, do not generally constitute an international procedure of investigation or settlement within the meaning of article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention. The Committee therefore considers that the abovementioned provision does not preclude it from considering the present complaint.14 9.2 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, the Committee does not consider any communication unless it has ascertained that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. In this instance, the Committee takes note of the fact that a complaint of torture was lodged with the Prosecutor-General at the Rabat Court of Appeal on 13 May 2011. That complaint was dismissed, reactivated and subsequently dismissed once again, on 18 April 2012, on the ground that the claims had not been substantiated. The Committee also notes that when he was on trial at the Rabat Court of Appeal, Mr. Aarrass reported that he had been tortured. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that domestic remedies with respect to Mr. Aarrass’ complaint that he was tortured while being held in police custody have been exhausted. 9.3 The other admissibility requirements having been met, the Committee considers the communication to be admissible and proceeds to its consideration of the claims on the merits under article 2, paragraph 1, and articles 11, 12, 13 and 15 of the Convention. Consideration of the merits 10.1 The Committee has considered the complaint in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 10.2 The Committee takes note of the claims by the complainant that he was placed in police custody on 14 December 2010 and subjected to torture sessions until 23 December 2010 for the purpose of extracting a confession from him; that he was then forced to sign a so-called confession, which had been written beforehand in Arabic, a language that he does not know well; that during this period his family was not informed of his whereabouts and only discovered where he was through the press on 27 December 2010; that he did not have access to a lawyer until that date; that the investigating judge neither documented his injuries at his hearing on 24 December 2010 nor requested a medical evaluation; and that when he made his second appearance before the investigating judge on 18 January 2011, this time accompanied by his lawyer, he made a complaint about being tortured in custody, but his allegations were not written down and the judge failed to order a medical examination. Concerning these allegations, the Committee also takes note of the State party’s comments that neither the complainant nor his lawyer made a complaint about torture at the hearing held on 18 January 2011. 10.3 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence concerning certain basic guarantees that must be applied to all persons deprived of their liberty in order to prevent them from being subjected to torture. These guarantees include the right of detainees promptly to receive independent legal assistance and independent medical assistance and to contact relatives.15 14 15 14 See also, for example, communication No. 1806/2008, Saadoun v. Algeria, Views of the Human Rights Committee adopted on 22 March 2013, para. 7.2. General comment No. 2 (2007) on implementation of article 2 by States parties, Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-third Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/63/44), annex VI. GE.14-06421