CCPR/C/116/D/2297/2013 in this case breached international law, since an investigating judge may not use the information transmitted in response to one letter of request to bring a further set of charges against an accused, who is thus subjected to double jeopardy (see also para. 5.16 infra). 3.14 By way of remedy, the author requests, inter alia, that the State party be required to conduct a thorough and detailed investigation into his incommunicado detention and the treatment to which he was subjected, to bring criminal proceedings against the persons responsible for those violations, in particular his torture, and to compensate him appropriately for the violations suffered. State party’s observations on admissibility and on the merits 4.1 On 13 January 2014, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and on the merits. With regard to admissibility, it considers that the author has not exhausted domestic remedies. Pursuant to article 51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, every detainee must undergo a medical examination on being admitted to a place of deprivation of liberty to ensure that there are no signs of violence on his or her person. Yet the medical report provided by the author with his submission makes no mention of allegations that he had been a victim of torture or violence. Moreover, the author did not make any allegation of torture at his first hearing before the investigating judge. He bore no sign of violence on his person when he was admitted to the place of detention, and, as stated above, every new admission undergoes a medical examination. Concerning the complaint submitted by the author to the public prosecutor, an investigation was conducted, and it was concluded that the complaint was not valid. The author did not appeal that decision. 4.2 Regarding the merits, the State party notes that the author was arrested on 28 September 2009, not on 17 September 2009 as claimed, and that he was brought before the public prosecutor, along with other suspects, on 6 October 2009. His initial detention lasted eight days, as provided for in article 65 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The police obtained the authorizations necessary to extend the author’s detention on three occasions. 4.3 The State party adds that the author is being prosecuted for corruption and moneylaundering both in Algeria and abroad. The case is still pending before the Algerian judicial authorities, and no other suspect has made any allegation of torture to the State party authorities, although they are facing the same charges. The State party suspects that the author is using the claims of torture before the Human Rights Committee to influence future judicial decisions that could be taken in his regard. The State party thus considers the communication to be without foundation. Author’s comments on admissibility and on the merits East-West Highway affair 5.1 In a submission dated 27 March 2014, the author reiterated his account of the facts, adding that his arrest and incommunicado detention from 17 September to 6 October 2009 constituted an enforced disappearance. He expressed surprise at the State party’s observations, the terseness and brevity of which are not commensurate with the gravity of the facts alleged. The State party has relied entirely on procedural documents that were, in all likelihood, drafted by persons suspected of having taken part in the violations complained of, and it has produced no evidence of any investigation having been conducted to shed light on these allegations. The author cites the Committee’s jurisprudence, according to which it is implicit in article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol that the State party is required to investigate in good faith all claims that it has violated the Covenant. Furthermore, the Committee may consider all the allegations to be well founded in the absence of satisfactory evidence or explanations to the contrary presented by the GE.16-07656 7