CAT/C/46/D/341/2008 wished to withdraw the communication. His request was motivated by the fact that during the time given to the State party to submit its comments, Mr. Sahraoui Hanafi and other members of his family, as well as several witnesses, had been summoned by the Algerian security forces to provide explanations on this case under interrogation. This had occurred at the beginning of 2009, at the Mechraâ-Sfa gendarmerie. 5.2 The complainant’s counsel recalls in this respect that according to article 45 of Order No. 06-01 of 27 February 2006, no proceedings may be instituted individually or collectively against any of the components of the defence and security forces of the Republic for actions taken to protect persons and property, safeguard the nation and preserve the institutions of the Republic of Algeria. According to article 46 of the Order, anyone who, by statements, writings or any other act, uses or exploits the wounds caused by the national tragedy in order to attack the institutions of the Republic, undermine the State, sully the honour of the officials who have served it with dignity or tarnish Algeria’s international image is subject to imprisonment of 3 to 5 years and a fine of 250,000 to 500,000 Algerian dinars. Criminal cases are automatically initiated by the prosecution services. 5.3 Counsel states that following those interrogation sessions, two witnesses reportedly withdrew their testimony, at least partially. Mr. Sahraoui Hanafi, the victim’s brother, who had submitted the initial complaint, was convinced that the witnesses were afraid that they themselves would be prosecuted, and he also considered it probable that they would turn against him. For his part, he feared that criminal proceedings would be brought against him. The questions asked of him and his replies, which had been taken down in a record, a copy of which he had been unable to obtain, had been sufficiently explicit for him to view them as a real threat. For example, he was asked if he confirmed that he was filing a complaint against the gendarmerie. Another of his brothers and the complainant had been asked the same questions, followed by comments to the effect that Mr. Hanafi did not have the right to initiate such proceedings. 5.4 Counsel expressed surprise at the fact that the State party summoned the brother of the victim, the complainant and their family while the procedure was under way with the Committee, and while the same case had been closed by the Algerian authorities. That behaviour was perceived by the complainant, her family and counsel as a warning. Counsel also expressed surprise that it was only after proceedings were initiated in the Committee that the victim’s family finally received the autopsy report. Lastly, the victim’s brother learned that three of his cousins, who had been questioned by the Algerian secret services in a case unrelated to the complaint before the Committee, had heard that Mr. Sahraoui Hanafi was under surveillance. These were indirect threats that shook the confidence of the victim’s brother that the Committee’s procedure could be carried out without him being harmed. 5.5 On 13 August 2009 counsel informed the Committee that the victim’s widow would replace the victim’s brother as complainant in the procedure before the Committee. Additional comments by the State party 6.1 In a note dated 30 November 2009 the State party expressed its disagreement regarding a violation of the procedure, as the Committee had unilaterally decided to extend the deadlines for the complainant and to accept a change in the name of the complainant. 6.2 The State party further recalls that, contrary to the claims made by the complainant, Order No. 06-01 of 27 February 2006 implementing the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation in no way prevents a member of the public from bringing claims before the treaty bodies under the provisions of their treaties and to submit communications, in compliance with their procedures, in particular the one relating to the exhaustion of 8 GE.11-43885