CAT/C/59/D/606/2014 Committee’s jurisprudence, mere doubts as to the effectiveness of such procedures do not absolve the complainant from exhausting them. 5 4.9 The State party considers the communication to be part of a political agenda parallel to the vote on the Security Council resolution on the mandate of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara. It claims that the complainant’s allegations are vague, non-specific and unfounded and that the documents appended to the communication refer mainly to a general situation, thereby revealing the purely political motivation of the complaint. 4.10 Lastly, the State party invokes an abuse of the right to file a complaint on the part of the complainant, in that he did not wait for the ruling of the Court of Cassation before referring the matter to the Committee and to the French criminal courts under the principle of universal jurisdiction. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 20 September 2014, in his response to the State party’s observations, the complainant recalled that the complaint concerned the circumstances of his arrest and detention and compliance with the Convention by Morocco, not the reasons for his conviction; the latter issues do not fall within the Committee’s remit. 5.2 The complainant maintains that he was arrested violently and without a warrant on 7 November 2010 at the home of friends. He considers that the procedural documents sent to the Committee which give 8 November as the date of arrest are proof that the date was falsified by the Moroccan authorities. He emphasizes that the complaint does not concern the actions of the security forces during the dismantling of the Gdeim Izik camp, since he had been arrested the day before and was therefore not present at the scene. The complainant challenges the State party’s assertion that he was taken to Laâyoune Royal Gendarmerie just after his arrest and notes that the State party does not call into question the fact that he suffered acts of torture. 5.3 The complainant rejects the claim that he has failed to exhaust domestic remedies, because the Court of Cassation, to which he appealed last and whose decision he awaits, does not constitute a third level of jurisdiction and does not review the merits of a case. Pursuant to articles 568 and 586 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court will rule on whether the military court complied with the law but not on the allegations of torture, which were not examined by the military court. 5.4 Under Moroccan law, prosecutions are the sole preserve of the public prosecutor’s office. The judges could not therefore take up the issue of torture on their own initiative: the Court should have reported the facts to the prosecutor so that the latter could launch an investigation; however, by refusing to follow up on the victim’s allegations and taking the view that the complainant had not been subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment, it clearly decided against such action. 6 5.5 The complainant adds that the consideration of cassation appeals is not time bound, and that the Court could well take 10 years to hand down its decision. He considers that the ineffectiveness of domestic remedies in his case is clear and has been recognized in reports of Human Rights Watch and the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. 7 5.6 The complainant also challenges the State party’s claim that he failed to file a complaint, since he reported the torture he had suffered to the judicial authorities several times. The complainant acknowledges that he did not request a medical examination. 8 5 6 7 8 6 The State party does not refer to any specific jurisprudence. The complainant refers to the military court’s order of 8 February and its decision of 17 February 2013. Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on its mission to Morocco (A/HRC/27/48/Add.5); and Human Rights Watch, Country Chapter, January 2014 (reports annexed to the complaint). The minutes of the hearing of 8 February 2013 and the interim order of the Rabat military court mention the complainant’s claim that he was tortured. The allegations of torture at the police station GE.17-06158