CAT/C/41/D/291/2006 page 23 she had just suffered. The tensions in the complainant’s family are confirmed by the record of the hearing of her brother: he stated that his sister had “ruined the atmosphere at his wedding”. 14.8 Lastly, the complainant refers to new information that has recently become available attesting to the existence of numerous procedural irregularities that permeate the Tunisian justice system and establishing that torture and ill-treatment are common practices in Tunisia.39 In conclusion, the complainant asserts that she has been consistent and has provided numerous details and that her version of events is therefore credible, and has been since the start of the proceedings. She has adduced a great deal of evidence to substantiate her complaint. The fact that she travelled to Tunisia twice to be present at the hearings demonstrates her good faith and her willingness to cooperate with the State party, with a view to shedding light on the case. Consideration of the merits 15.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 15.2 The Committee takes note of the State party’s observations of 23 January 2008 challenging the admissibility of the complaint. It notes, however, that even though a judicial investigation was opened on 27 June 2006, the investigation has yet to result in a decision. It also takes note of the “records” of the hearings and confrontations organized in the course of the investigation, while observing that the documents produced by the State party seem to be summaries - rather than records - of the hearings; that they are incomplete, some passages having been omitted; and that the statements imputed to the complainant do not appear in them. It therefore considers that the points raised by the State party are not such as to require the Committee to review its decision on admissibility, owing in particular to the lack of any convincing new or additional information from the State party concerning the failure to reach any decision on the complaint after more than four years of lis alibi pendens, which in the Committee’s opinion justifies the view that the exhaustion of domestic remedies has been unreasonably prolonged (see paragraph 12.3 above). The Committee therefore sees no reason to reverse its decision on admissibility. 15.3 Accordingly, the Committee proceeds to its consideration of the merits and notes that the complainant alleges violations by the State party of article 2, paragraph 1, taken in conjunction with article 1, or, alternatively, article 16, paragraph 1; and articles 11, 12, 13 and 14, taken separately or in conjunction with article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention. 39 See United States Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2007, Tunisia, 11 March 2008; Human Rights Watch World Report 2008; the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee on Tunisia (CCPR/C/TUN/CO/5, 28 March 2008); and the European Court of Human Rights judgement of 28 February 2008 in the case of Saadi v. Italy, application No. 37201/06.