CAT/C/59/D/606/2014 6.2 These offences are punishable by custodial sentences and the defendants could also be ordered to pay a fine and damages. Counsel considers that this complaint violates the Convention, in particular article 13 thereof. 6.3 Counsel is concerned that the Moroccan authorities will carry out their threats to impose a conviction, following the complaint filed by the Ministry of the Interior of Morocco, as they did in the case of another person, W.C., who is a member of the February 20 Movement and the Moroccan Human Rights Association. On 20 October 2014, W.C. was sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment for false accusation as a result of filing a complaint of torture and abduction with the public prosecutor in Tangier on 30 April 2014. Three days previously, at the end of a demonstration in which she had participated, the young woman had been abducted, then beaten, insulted and threatened before being abandoned outside the city. On 23 July 2014, another activist of the Moroccan Human Rights Association was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine, also for false accusation, after reporting acts of torture. 6.4 The complainant considers that the convictions of these human rights activists and the prosecution of himself, his counsel and the other two persons mentioned above are the first stages of a general policy of intimidation of victims of torture that was announced by the Minister of Justice in an official statement issued on 10 June 2014, in which the Minister promised to investigate the allegations of torture but also announced that persons making “false” accusations would be prosecuted. To date, in practice, only the second part of the announcement has been followed by specific actions. 6.5 In these circumstances, the complainant requests the Committee to find a violation of article 13 of the Convention and to make a ruling on his case as soon as possible. He also asks the Committee to urge the State party to put an immediate end to the intimidation. 6.6 On 18 February 2015, counsel requested the Committee to organize an oral hearing of the parties, as had been done on 8 May 2012 at the request of Kazakhstan in the case of Abdussamatov et al. v. Kazakhstan.12 6.7 The complainant is of the view that, as demonstrated by the observations submitted by Morocco, which accuse him and his counsel of using the Committee’s complaints mechanism for political ends, the trial proceedings brought against him and his 23 codefendants are highly politicized. He asks that the focus of the discussion be shifted towards a strictly legal approach to the situation. 6.8 The complainant also indicates that, since the complaint was submitted to the Committee, several articles have appeared in the Moroccan press which delegitimize the steps taken by himself and his counsel. The articles often portray him as a threat to the State, an Algerian agent or a murderer who is trying to evade responsibility. 6.9 On 6 March 2015, counsel added that a Moroccan lawyer from ACAT-France had gone to the Rabat Regional Court and had tried to obtain a copy of the complaint filed by the Ministry of the Interior. The judge refused to give him the copy requested, but confirmed that the complaint concerned the complainant, among others. Additional information provided by the State party 7.1 On 12 March 2015, the State party replied that, in its view, it was inappropriate for the Committee to express a view on the alleged violation of article 13 of the Convention, as it had decided to consider only the admissibility of the communication at this stage. The State party wishes to reassure the Committee that the case against the complainant and his counsel should not be interpreted as a retaliatory measure. It denounces a series of criminal acts attributable to the non-governmental organization, ACAT-France, during a “slanderous” campaign and maintains that it is for this reason that the Moroccan authorities felt the need to file a complaint for defamation, false accusation and insulting the authorities. The State party asserts that this does not affect the complainant’s ability to submit his complaint to the Committee. 12 8 Communication No. 444/2010, Abdussamatov et al. v. Kazakhstan, decision adopted on 1 June 2012, para. 9.1. GE.17-06158