CAT/C/59/D/606/2014 intimidation that might occur as a consequence of the complaint made or any evidence given. The Committee notes that the complainant was subjected to threats following the complaint filed by the Ministry of the Interior of Morocco, and that his lawyer was arrested and expelled from Morocco in March 2016, when he was coming to represent his client in proceedings in connection with the denunciation of the acts of torture to which he was allegedly subjected. The State party has not provided any information to refute this part of the communication. The Committee concludes that these acts also constitute a violation of article 13 of the Convention. 13.6 Regarding the complainant’s allegations under article 14 of the Convention, the Committee recalls that this provision recognizes the right of the victim of an act of torture to fair and adequate compensation, and requires States parties to ensure that he obtains redress for all injuries suffered. The Committee recalls that redress must cover all the harm suffered and encompass restitution, compensation and guarantees of non-repetition, taking into account the circumstances of each individual case. 19 In the present case, the Committee notes the complainant’s allegation that he is suffering the physical and psychological aftereffects of the ill-treatment inflicted. The Committee also notes that the fact that the military investigating judge did not order a medical examination prevented the applicant from receiving rehabilitation, compensation, support and guarantees of non-repetition of the crime. The Committee considers that the failure to conduct a thorough, prompt and impartial investigation denied the complainant any possibility of exercising his right to redress, in violation of article 14 of the Convention. 20 13.7 The complainant also claims to be a victim of a violation of article 15 of the Convention because he was convicted on the basis of confessions obtained through torture. The Committee notes that the complainant claims to have confessed to nothing, but to have been forced to sign a document whose content he did not know. 13.8 The Committee recalls that the general nature of the provisions of article 15 of the Convention derives from the absolute nature of the prohibition of torture and therefore implies an obligation for any State party to verify that statements included in proceedings under its jurisdiction were not obtained through torture. 21 In this case, the Committee notes that, according to the complainant, the statements that he signed as a result of torture served as the grounds for the charges against him and as justification for his continued detention for more than six years; and that he has, through his counsel, questioned the probative value of the confession signed under torture at various stages of the proceedings against him, without success. The Committee also notes that the Court did not take the allegations of torture into account when sentencing the complainant on the basis of his confession and denied that these allegations had been made during the proceedings. 22 The Committee considers that the State party was under an obligation to verify the substance of the complainant’s claims. By failing to carry out any verification and using such statements in the judicial proceedings against the complainant, the State party manifestly violated its obligations under article 15 of the Convention. In this connection, the Committee recalls that, in its concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Morocco (CAT/C/MAR/CO/4, para. 17), it expressed concern about the fact that, in the State party’s current system of investigation, confessions are often used as evidence for prosecutions and convictions, thus creating conditions that may provide more scope for the torture and illtreatment of suspects.23 19 20 21 22 23 14 See Bendib v. Algeria, para. 6.7. See communication No. 514/2012, Niyonzima v. Burundi, decision adopted on 21 November 2014, para. 8.6. See communications No. 419/2010, Ktiti v. Morocco, decision adopted on 26 May 2011, para. 8.8, and No. 193/2001, P.E. v. France, decision adopted on 21 November 2002, para. 6.3. The allegations were made in the presence of witnesses and are recorded in the minutes that the complainant appended to his complaint to the Committee. However, the request for permission to question the persons who drafted the record of the interrogations about the conditions in which the confession was obtained — a request that was made by the complainant’s lawyer during the hearing of 8 February 2013 before the military investigating judge — was denied. See communication No. 503/2012, Ntikarahera v. Burundi, decision adopted on 12 May 2014, para. 6.6. See also Niyonzima v. Burundi, para. 8.8. GE.17-06158