CCPR/C/116/D/2297/2013 State party.6 In the present case, the State party has not provided any satisfactory evidence or explanations to refute the serious allegations made by the author. 5.2 The State party maintains, with regard to the allegations of torture, that the author has not exhausted domestic remedies, without, however, explaining what remedy was available against the decision by the prosecutor to take no further action on the complaint lodged by the author on 3 November 2011. The author notes that the decision was taken very quickly, within nine days of the complaint’s being lodged. In the author’s view, quite apart from the fact that this length of time appears totally inadequate to conduct the inquiries necessitated by the acts complained of, the State party has not even attempted to conceal the lack of any actual investigation. No evidence relating to an investigation has been submitted. Moreover, the procedure followed was flawed, since, in accordance with article 207, second paragraph, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, all acts committed by services of the DRS come under the jurisdiction of the Algiers Indictments Chamber, to which cases are referred by the Chief Prosecutor after consultation with the local military prosecutor. 5.3 Regarding the recourse available, articles 576 and 577 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulate that it is for the public prosecutor to transmit complaints to the Chief Prosecutor at the Court of Appeal, who then determines whether proceedings are warranted, in which case the President of the Court orders an investigation to be conducted by an investigating judge. Under Algerian law, a decision to take no further action on a complaint is not subject to appeal. 5.4 Only an impartial inquiry into the circumstances, date, time and place of the author’s arrest can determine whether his detention in police custody was properly conducted. The author notes that it was not possible for him to challenge his detention before the investigating judge. 5.5 In addition, in breach of article 40 ter of the Code of Criminal Procedure, under which criminal investigation officers are required to inform the public prosecutor immediately of any arrest, the military security officers carrying out the investigation did not notify the prosecutor, either on 28 September 2009, the date of the author’s arrest according to the State party, or on 17 September 2009, the actual date of arrest. This is evident from the author’s case file. 5.6 When a person is arrested and placed in police custody, the criminal investigation officers concerned must inform the public prosecutor immediately and submit a report setting out the grounds for holding the person (Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 51). The preliminary investigation file contains no document demonstrating that this requirement was respected. When the custody period has to be extended beyond 48 hours, the officers must present the detained individual to the prosecutor, who questions him or her, then decides whether the detention should be extended. Any extension must be authorized in writing by the competent public prosecutor, as stipulated in article 65 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the present case, the first procedural document from the public prosecutor is dated 6 October 2009. Under the Code, however, all written proceedings must be included in the preliminary investigation file. 5.7 In violation of articles 52 and 53 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the author was not informed of his right to contact his family and was not examined by a doctor at the end of his period in police custody. Furthermore, as stated in the complaint, the record of the hearing before the investigating judge does not mention the duration of the interrogations by the investigators or of the rest breaks between them. 6 8 See, for example, communication No. 1297/2004, Medjnoune v. Algeria, Views adopted on 14 July 2006, para. 8.3. GE.16-07656