CAT/C/31/D/189/2001 Page 6 2.18 The complainant provides a list of people who subjected him to torture and ill-treatment.4 2.19 The complainant describes the consequences of the torture and ill-treatment that was inflicted on him, namely, an operation in 1988 to remove a fatty growth at the back of his head caused by violent blows administered under torture; scars of cigarette burns on his feet; kidney pains resulting from the detention conditions; and mental problems: he submits a medical certificate attesting to a neuropsychiatric disorder and showing that he has received medical treatment and psychotherapy at a Swiss psychiatric centre. 2.20 As to whether all domestic remedies have been exhausted, the complainant argues that, while such remedies might be provided for in Tunisian law, they are impossible in practice because of the bias of judges and the impunity granted to those responsible for violations. He adds that the regulations governing the activities of bodies which play a role in upholding human rights, such as the Higher Committee for Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Constitutional Council, prevent them from supporting complaints of torture. To back up his argument, he cites the reports of such non-governmental organizations as Amnesty International, the International Federation for Human Rights and Human Rights Watch. Substance of the complaint 3.1 The complainant maintains that the Tunisian Government has breached the following articles of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: Article 1. The practices described above, such as “falka”, the “roast chicken” position, the “upside-down” position, the “chair”, etc., to which the complainant was subjected, constitute acts of torture. Article 2, paragraph 1. It is alleged that the State party not only failed to take effective measures to prevent torture, but even mobilized its administrative machinery and, in particular, its police force as an instrument of torture against the complainant. Article 4. It is alleged that the State party has not ensured that all the acts of torture to which the complainant has been subjected are offences under its criminal law. Article 5. It is alleged that the State party has instituted no legal proceedings against those responsible for torturing the complainant. Article 11. It is alleged that the authorities have not used their supervisory powers to prevent torture; instead, specific instructions have been given that torture is to be applied. Article 12. It is alleged that the State party has not carried out an investigation of the acts of torture committed against the complainant. Article 13. It is alleged that the State party has not effectively upheld the complainant’s right to lodge a complaint with the competent authorities. 4 Available for information in the file.