CAT/C/31/D/189/2001 Page 17 offence, the Tunisian authorities are content to accuse the alleged victims of terrorism and manipulation. The complainant also produces a list of complaints by Tunisian public figures which were recently reported and ignored by the authorities. He considers that he has drawn up a detailed account of his individual case, giving names, places, dates and treatment inflicted, but the State party contents itself with a blanket denial of such treatment. The complainant did not mention torturers because of their membership of the security forces, but because of specific and repeated attacks on his physical and moral integrity and his private and family life. The initiation of an investigation designed to check whether a person belonging to the security forces has committed acts of torture or other acts does not constitute a violation of the presumption of innocence but a legal step which is vital in order to investigate a case and, if appropriate, place it before the judicial authorities for decision. In relation to appeals before the courts, the complainant considers that the State party has confined itself to repeating the description of legal options open to victims set out in its previous submissions without responding to the last two sentences of paragraph 7.2 of the decision on admissibility. He reiterates that the theoretical legal options described by the State party are inoperative. 9.5 Concerning the claim of inertia and lack of action, the complainant considers that the State party is inconsistent in holding that acts of torture are regarded as serious offences in Tunisian law and accordingly prosecuted automatically, while awaiting a complaint by the victim before taking action. He also re-emphasizes his serious efforts to demand a medical examination and an investigation into the torture he had suffered, referring to the examining magistrate’s refusal of his request for a medical examination, and the medical certificate indicating a neuropsychiatric disorder. 9.6 The complainant maintains that his counsel refused to sign the transcript of the questioning before the examining magistrate, thereby proving the abnormal conditions in which the proceedings took place. He also notes that by its own admission, but by means of legal reasoning which he finds strange, the State party acknowledges that the examining magistrate refused his request for a medical examination because of the absence of any obvious traces of violence. The complainant explains that holding an individual in pre-trial detention beyond the time limits laid down by law for the purposes of concealing the traces of torture, and then denying him the right to a medical examination on the grounds that there were no obvious traces of torture, falls within a pattern of institutionalization of torture. Lastly, according to the complainant, the State party thereby acknowledges that it prevented him from initiating an elementary and obvious procedure which would provide him with the initial evidence he requires. He adds that in his extremely serious case, in which he was brought before a court of special jurisdiction (the State Security Court), this refusal deprived him of the last resort which would have enabled him to defend his interests. According to the complainant, given the serious charges made against him, the slightest doubt and the slightest allegation of ill-treatment should have triggered a process of checking. Furthermore, the examining magistrate’s refusal to authorize a medical examination lessened the complainant’s chances of resubmitting the request to the court (even though the request was indeed resubmitted). 9.7 Concerning the allegations relating to his confession, the complainant maintains that his confession was extracted under torture, and, citing the reports of CNLT, states that such methods are used in political trials and sometimes in trials involving offences under ordinary law. As for the State party’s endeavours to detect signs of contradiction in his acknowledgement of membership of the ENNAHDA movement (para. 8.6), the complainant is surprised at this