CAT/C/59/D/606/2014 hearing before the military court. As none of the Moroccan judges wished to consider his allegations, the Court of Cassation is not competent to rule on the merits of the allegations of torture that he has submitted. 10.2 The complainant recalls that the cassation appeal has been in progress since February 2015. Thus, not only is it irrelevant as far as the allegations of torture are concerned, but it is also taking an unreasonable length of time. With regard to the proceedings instituted against the victim and his legal representative, the complainant finds it regrettable that the State party is vaunting the judicial harassment to which it is subjecting the victim and the non-governmental organization assisting him as grounds to declare the complaint submitted to the Committee inadmissible. He also notes that the case for false accusation and other offences instituted against him and ACAT appears to have stalled, as it has never been heard by the investigating judge. He adds that since 2010 legal proceedings have been initiated against the vast majority of the Saharans arrested in connection with the dismantling of the Gdeim Izik camp, but that the accused have been released on bail and have never been tried. 10.3 Lastly, the complainant reiterates that his arrest did take place on 7 November 2010. He refers to the communication submitted on 20 February 2014 for details of the numerous allegations of torture that he has submitted to the Moroccan judicial authorities, without any of them having ever been followed up. The complainant reiterated that he had been tortured before the military investigating judge on 30 September 2011, as is evidenced by the minutes of the hearing. With regard to the place of arrest, the complainant maintains that he was arrested at the home of a friend, who confirmed the complainant’s version when he was summoned to appear as a witness by the military court. 10.4 On 1 February 2016, the complainant repeated his claim that he was arbitrarily detained for 5 years and 3 months on the basis of confessions obtained as a result of torture. He believes that the State party’s latest observations are a delaying tactic and do not provide substantive new information. 10.5 The complainant believes that the complaint he submitted in France with his wife does not alter the fact that the State party violated the Convention in several respects. He claims that he submitted this complaint because it was impossible for him to obtain justice in Morocco. He specifies that, under the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between France and Morocco, the French judge is under no obligation to refer the complaint to the Moroccan courts. State party’s additional observations 11.1 On 27 July 2016, the State party submitted additional observations, informing the Committee that the Court of Cassation had declared admissible, on 27 July 2016, the cassation appeal lodged by the defence team of Mr. Asfari and had decided to refer the case to the Rabat Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The authorities reiterate, therefore, that the complainant has not exhausted domestic remedies. 11.2 In accordance with the Committee’s request for details of the Court of Cassation’s decision of 27 July 2016, 16 the State party communicated a copy of the decision on 20 September 2016, indicating that, pursuant to article 554 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court of Appeal should uphold the judgment of the Court of Cassation on the point of law decided by the latter. The State party asserts that, by virtue of the principle of the devolutive effect of appeal, the Court will review the case in its entirety, guaranteeing the rights of the defence, through an examination of all the arguments of the parties, including the allegations of torture and ill-treatment. On 4 November 2016, the State party indicated 16 GE.17-06158 The Committee invited the State party to: (a) provide a full copy and complete references of the Court of Cassation’s decision dated 27 July 2016; (b) specify the points of law and of fact on which the Rabat Court of Appeal was to rule in the context of the referral, as well as the approximate length of time in which the case was to be reviewed; and (c) provide details of the new Code of Military Justice, which entered into force on 1 June 2015 and under which the Court of Cassation may refer a case to a civil court (the Court of Appeal) when it decides to set aside a judgment of the military court. 11