CAT/C/46/D/341/2008 4.6 The State party nonetheless intends to present some information following interviews held with persons cited in the complaint, as taken down in a record. These interviews have shown that the complaint is based on false or distorted testimony — an offence — with the aim of abusing the Committee’s process, in violation of article 107, paragraph (b), of the Committee’s rules of procedure. The first witness, Mr. Boudali Benaissa, who was arrested on 1 November 1998 by the same gendarmerie for supporting and justifying terrorism, said that he was aware of the arrest of Mr. Djilali Hanafi on 2 November 1998 and his release on 3 November 1998 at the time of the Isha night-time prayer, as the victim was suffering from stomach pains. He continued his testimony stating that he had met the victim at the gendarmerie headquarters the same day for nearly half an hour, denying that they were together during the night and stating that he had not provided any written statement to the victim’s family or any human rights organization. 4.7 The State party states that the second witness heard was Mr. Mohamed Belkacem, who said he had been arrested in 1997, that he did not know the victim at all and that he had never heard anything about him. He said that he knew nothing about the statement written in his name and enclosed with the complaint, noting that the signature was not his. The third witness was Mr. Djilali Malki. He denied having produced any testimony at all, oral or written, in the case in question. He added that Mr. Djilali Hanafi, who was with him in the provisional lock-up at the Mechraâ-Sfa local station of the national gendarmerie, had been subjected to no violence by the staff of that unit, pointing out that he had been released on 3 November 1998, at dusk, after having complained of stomach pains. He concluded that the victim had complained of such pains well before being arrested by the staff of the gendarmerie. The complainant, the victim’s widow, had stated that she had first given a power of attorney to her brother-in-law, Sahraoui Hanafi, to bring the case to the attention of the human rights league in order to obtain financial compensation. She had added that her husband had been arrested by staff of the Mechraâ-Sfa local station of the national gendarmerie on 2 November 1998, and then released the following day, on 3 November 1998, at the time of the Isha night-time prayer, and that some four hours later, he had died as a result of his illness. She had finished her testimony stating that she had not noticed any signs of physical abuse on his body. 4.8 The State party adds that the forensic medical examiner for the Tiaret health sector presented investigators with a copy of the report of the autopsy carried out on the deceased. The copy showed that the death had been due to an acute heart attack, and the report cited no signs of violence. From the investigation carried out by the State party it became clear that the witnesses unanimously denied having produced any oral or written testimony in the case, just as they stated that they had never signed any statements. 4.9 The State party notes that the complaint contains contradictions, such as the reference to the time the victim reportedly spent in police custody. The complaint states that the custody lasted three days, while the witnesses unanimously stated that it was one day long. The State party concludes from this that the complainant’s allegations are baseless and that her brother-in-law obtained false evidence and falsified the facts with the sole purpose of obtaining compensation to which they had no claim. The State party thus considers the complaint to be unfounded. 4.10 On 30 March 2009 the State party provided the Committee with a copy of the autopsy concerning the victim’s death, drawn up by the forensic medical examiner for the Tiaret health sector. The autopsy concluded that the direct cause of death was an acute heart attack and that there were no signs of a struggle or of self-defence, externally or internally. Complainant’s comments 5.1 In a letter of 29 June 2009 the complainant’s counsel informed the Committee that the brother of the victim, Mr. Sahraoui Hanafi, who had submitted the initial complaint, GE.11-43885 7