CAT/C/59/D/606/2014 that the complainant’s case had been entered in the register of the Court of Appeal for a hearing on 26 December 2016. 11.3 Concerning the provisions of the new Code of Military Justice, the State party states that, since its entry into force on 1 July 2015, the military court is no longer competent to try civilians prosecuted for ordinary law offences. Judgments handed down before 1 July 2015 by these courts are referred to the civil courts. With regard to decisions set aside by the Court of Cassation, the latter may, in accordance with the provisions of article 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, determine the court to which the case is to be referred. Additional information from the complainant 12.1 On 13 September 2016, in response to the Committee’s request for comments on the setting aside of the complainant’s conviction and its referral to a civil appeals court, the complainant stated that the State party’s observations provided no information on the merits of the case. He recalled that the Committee had already ruled on the admissibility of the complaint on 21 May 2015, and expressed concern that the communication from the State party had been sent at the very time that the Committee was about to rule on the merits. 12.2 The complainant recalls moreover that the State party has far exceeded the reasonable length of time for dispensing justice in his case: nearly six years have elapsed since the events in question and the submission of the first allegations of torture, repeated on several occasions, and no investigation has been initiated. The setting aside of the decision has done nothing to change that factual situation and the complainant is still being detained on the sole basis of a confession signed under duress. In his additional comments dated 13 October 2016, the complainant reiterates all aspects of his previous arguments. 12.3 On 26 October 2016, the complainant informed the Committee that his wife — Claude Mangin — had not been authorized to enter Morocco on 19 October and that she had not, therefore, been authorized to visit him in prison. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of the merits 13.1 In accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present complaint in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned. 13.2 The Committee notes the complainant’s allegation that the physical ill-treatment he suffered during his arrest, his interrogation at the police station and later at Laâyoune gendarmerie, and the treatment to which he was subjected during his transfer by plane in order to force him to confess, amount to acts of torture because of their severity. The Committee notes that in the course of his hearings on 12 November 2010, 12 January 2011 and 12 August 2011, the complainant complained of the treatment he had suffered, but that the investigating judge ignored his allegations and injuries and did not ask for a medical examination to be carried out. The Committee also notes the complainant’s allegations that those acts of violence, which caused him acute suffering for several months, constitute a violation of article 1 of the Convention. The Committee further notes the State party’s argument that, at the aforementioned hearings, neither the complainant nor his lawyer made a complaint about torture. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which any person deprived of liberty must be given access to prompt and independent legal and medical assistance and must be able to contact his family in order to prevent torture. 17 Taking account of the fact that, according to the complainant, he did not have access to any of these safeguards, and in the absence of convincing information from the State party challenging these allegations, the Committee considers that the physical ill-treatment and injuries suffered by the complainant during his arrest, interrogation and detention, as presented, constitute torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. 17 12 General comment No. 2 (2007) on implementation of article 2 by States parties. GE.17-06158