CAT/C/41/D/291/2006 page 21 court of first instance in Tunis on 22 July 2004, the officers categorically denied the complainant’s allegations, asserting that she had not suffered any ill-treatment.36 13.3 The investigating judge conducted the usual confrontations, during which the complainant repeated that she had been subjected to ill-treatment, identifying two of the three law enforcement officers as having been on duty on the day of the incident. Of those two officers, one, according to the complainant, had played no part in the alleged events. She identified the other officer as the one who had taken her to the court’s jail, gripping her arm, which had caused her pain. She said that a third officer, not the one who had been brought before her, had been responsible for the ill-treatment inflicted. However, the officer who had been brought before her stated that he had been the third officer on duty on 22 July 2004. In addition, the complainant reaffirmed that she had asked one of her fellow detainees to testify in her favour in exchange for a gift. She also admitted that she had not informed her family of the ill-treatment on her return home. The persons detained along with her and the law enforcement officers reiterated that the complainant had not been subjected to any ill-treatment while being held in the court’s jail. The complainant’s brother repeated his previous statements. 13.4 According to the State party, the evidence contained in the investigation file confirms the double contradiction noted in respect of the medical certificate submitted to the Committee by the complainant (see paragraph 11.2 above). It also confirms that the complainant was not subjected to ill-treatment at the court of first instance in Tunis. Consequently, the State party requests the Committee to reconsider its decision declaring the complaint admissible, since domestic remedies have not been exhausted, the investigation is still under way and the evidence uncovered by the investigation as to the merits demonstrates that the complaint is baseless. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 14.1 On 7 April 2008, the complainant argued that the issue of admissibility had been settled by the Committee’s decision of 7 November 2007. She made clear that she had indeed filed a complaint with the domestic courts and that she had twice travelled to Tunis in response to summonses by the investigating judge of the court of first instance, in order to be present at two hearings relating to the investigation into her complaint of torture and ill-treatment. The hearings were held on 11 December 2007 and 7 January 2008 at the fourth investigations office of the court of first instance. Three other hearings seem to have been organized, however, without her presence having been sought, on 30 August 2007, 31 August 2007 and 4 January 2008. 14.2 The complainant notes that the State party has included in the file a partial record of those hearings, contained in eight annexes in Arabic. The records are incomplete and confused and numerous passages have been omitted, without any explanation being provided by the State party. The complainant comments that these documents do not constitute records, since they do not reflect what was actually said during the investigating judge’s interviews with the witnesses: 36 Idem.