CAT/C/46/D/341/2008 3.3 The complainant says that the State party is not respecting its obligation under article 11 of the Convention to keep under systematic review laws and practices related to interrogations and the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty. She refers to the various recommendations made to the State party, in particular concerning the authorized length of police custody, the lack of judicial oversight at several detention centres, the system for the treatment of detainees, the obligation to have an independent body investigate all allegations of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and the duty to ensure that all detainees effectively have the right to counsel as soon as they are arrested. Such shortcomings in the law and in the practices of the Algerian authorities have regularly been pointed out since 1992. The fact that the same defects have been noted at 15 years’ interval demonstrates that the State party has been remiss in its obligations under article 11 of the Convention. 3.4 The complainant points out that the State party did not conduct a prompt and impartial investigation of the allegations that Djilali Hanafi was the victim of torture, thus disregarding the obligation imposed by article 12 of the Convention against Torture. Despite the numerous requests made by the victim’s family members bringing the facts to the attention of the various State institutions and requesting that they take action, no criminal investigation was ever ordered. The only investigation carried out was conducted as part of the procedure for the granting of assistance, and it did not take place until 2006. The officials assigned the task of investigating the circumstances surrounding the death of Djilali Hanafi were the ones responsible for his death. The investigation was thus not impartial. 3.5 The complainant points out that the State party did not offer the victim’s family members the opportunity to file a complaint with a view to the prompt and impartial examination of the allegations, in violation of article 13 of the Convention. The Tiaret State prosecutor and the various authorities later seized of the matter did not follow up on the complaints filed by the family members of the victim. Their request for the report of the autopsy carried out on 5 November 1998 was denied, as was access to the results of the inquiry the State said it had conducted following the request for compensation, in 2006. 3.6 The complainant also considers that the State party violated article 14 of the Convention against Torture. On the one hand, it disregarded the right of the victim’s family members to redress, as the crimes perpetrated against him went unpunished owing to the unresponsiveness of the State, and on the other hand, those entitled to adequate compensation, far from receiving it, were denied any compensation, or even State assistance, at all. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 2 March 2009 the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits of the complaint. It contested the admissibility on the grounds that domestic remedies had not been exhausted as required under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention and rule 107, paragraph 22 (e), of the Committee’s rules of procedure. The State party also contests the merits of the complaint, according to which the victim, Mr. Djilali Hanafi, died between 1 and 3 November 1998 while in police custody at the Machraâ-Sfa gendarmerie in Tiaret wilaya. 4.2 The State party emphasizes that the exhaustion of domestic remedies is an essential obligation for a complaint to be admissible. In the case in question the complainant has not exhausted all remedies available under Algerian law. The State party insists on the importance of distinguishing between mere enquiries made with the political or administrative authorities, non-contentious appeals brought before advisory or mediation bodies and contentious remedies sought in the various competent judicial bodies. The State party notes that the statements made by the complainant indicate that she sent letters to the GE.11-43885 5