CAT/C/59/D/606/2014 However, he recalls that, when he was first brought before the military investigating judge on 12 November 2010, he had contusions on his face and a bloodied right eyebrow. He also showed the judge the bruised soles of his feet but the latter did not record these signs of abuse in the minutes. On 12 January 2011, this time in the presence of his lawyer, the complainant informed the judge of the torture that he had suffered. During the trial, he explicitly denounced the torture, as is evidenced in the minutes of the hearing of 8 February 2013 and the military court’s interim order of the same date. The military court made no mention of these allegations in its decision of 17 February 2013; it found the defendants, including the complainant, guilty and sentenced them to prison. 9 5.7 The complainant adds that, according to the Committee’s jurisprudence on article 13, it is enough for the victim to bring the facts to the attention of an authority of the State for the latter to be obliged to initiate a prompt and impartial investigation. 10 5.8 The complainant asserts that the State party’s contentions that his complaint is politically motivated and that he abused the right to file a complaint are accusations repeatedly levelled at human rights defenders and prove that the State party does not intend to conduct an effective, prompt, independent and impartial investigation. In response to the State party’s claim that the complaint is unfounded, the complainant recalls that the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention deemed his case to be serious and substantiated, and considered it in its 2013 report on its mission to Morocco (see A/HRC/27/48/Add.5, para. 68), in which it recommended that the State party should conduct prompt investigations into all allegations of ill-treatment in the context of arrests made during and after demonstrations and at Laâyoune prison, prevent arbitrary detention, prosecute the perpetrators and provide compensation to the victims. 5.9 The complainant requests the Committee to require the State party to provide redress by releasing him from prison and putting an immediate end to all forms of violation of article 15. He claims the right to be retried, with the information obtained under duress excluded, and requests compensation for physical, psychological and moral injury, for material damage and loss of earnings, and for loss of earnings potential. He also requests the payment of compensation for costs incurred in judicial proceedings, expert assistance and medical, psychological and social services, as well as access to free, appropriate and prompt rehabilitation. Lastly, he requests measures of satisfaction, namely a prompt, independent, effective and impartial investigation into the allegations of torture and guarantees of non-repetition. Additional information provided by the complainant 6.1 On 4 February 2015, the complainant and his counsel informed the Committee that they were both being intimidated by the Moroccan authorities. They stated that, in March 2014, shortly after the complaint was submitted to the Committee, the Moroccan and French media had announced that the Moroccan Ministry of Justice had decided to file a complaint for defamation and false accusation, among other issues, against the complainant, his counsel and two other victims tortured in Morocco. In June 2014, the media announced that a complaint had been filed against the complainant and his counsel by the Ministry of the Interior of Morocco. 11 The complainant, his counsel and the other accused persons received no news about the proceedings until, at the end of January 2015, counsel and one of the victims represented by ACAT-France were summoned to appear before an investigating judge of the Rabat Court to answer charges of defamation, false accusation, insulting the authorities, using manipulation and fraud to induce others to give false testimony, complicity and public abuse. 9 10 11 GE.17-06158 also appear in the decision of the first investigating chamber, which referred the case to the Rabat military court. See military court decision of 17 February 2013. See, for example, communications No. 6/1990, Parot v. Spain, Views adopted on 2 May 1995, para. 10.4; No. 59/1996, Blanco Abad v. Spain, Views adopted on 14 May 1998, para. 8.6; and No. 189/2001, Bouabdallah Ltaief v. Tunisia, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 10.6. See www.afrik.com/affaire-hammouchi-le-maroc-depose-plainte-et-fustige-la-justice-francaise (11 June 2014). 7