CAT/C/46/D/341/2008
detained and where the victim had been tortured, at a time when the procedure was before
the Committee. In the event that the State party did have the right to conduct a
supplementary investigation while the procedure was before the Committee, the
complainant considers that special provisions should have been made to guarantee the
integrity of the witness statements of those questioned. The complainant therefore considers
that the hearings should have been subject to prior authorization from the Committee,
which has a procedure before it. Moreover, a lawyer representing the interests of the
complainant or any other person chosen by the complainant should have been present
during the questioning to avoid any pressure, intimidation or constraint on the witnesses.
7.12 Finally, in respect of the allegations of contradictions in the complaint, the
complainant states that she never alleged that the detention lasted for one day. That came
rather from the statements of the State party. The complainant and her family always
affirmed that the victim had been held for three days. Regarding the complainant’s
statement that she had not noticed signs of physical abuse on the victim’s body, she affirms
that, given her husband’s state of health when he returned home, she and her family had
simply laid him on a bed. He was vomiting blood before he died, and the complainant
indeed did not think to check for possible bruising on his body before the corpse was taken
away. The complainant emphasizes that she never had the intention of initiating
proceedings to obtain unreasonable financial redress, as the State party maintains. She also
states that the demand for redress for acts of torture is not unreasonable, as the State party
asserts, but is justified. Such redress includes not only financial compensation, but also a
recognition of violations committed.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Consideration of admissibility
8.1
Before considering any of the allegations in a communication, the Committee
against Torture must decide whether or not the communication is admissible under article
22 of the Convention.
8.2
Concerning compliance with the Committee’s procedure, the Committee points out
that, in accordance with article 98, paragraph 2 (c), of it rules of procedure, a complaint
may be submitted by the alleged victim or by a close relative of the alleged victim. In that
the interests of the alleged victim are respected, there is no provision in its rules of
procedure that prevents the Committee from considering the complaint. In respect of the
time limits for submitting comments, the Committee wishes to recall its practice of granting
extensions to deadlines for either party, on the party’s request, if it considers the request
valid.
8.3
The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5
(a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under
another procedure of international investigation or settlement.
8.4
The Committee notes that, according to the State party, the complainant has not
exhausted domestic remedies, as is required under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the
Convention, since the complainant and her family did not consider the possibility of
claiming damages in criminal proceedings before the investigating judge. The Committee
notes the complainant’s arguments that she and her family brought the case to the attention
of the office of the public prosecutor working in the competent courts for their district, both
civil and military, challenging the arbitrary arrest and torture, followed by the death of the
victim, to no avail; that, on 12 January 1999, the complainant filed a complaint with the
State prosecutor at the Tiaret court; that she never received a response from the authorities;
that, in 2000, members of her family also brought the case before the Tiaret prosecutor, the
12
GE.11-43885