CAT/C/41/D/291/2006 page 8 3.6 According to the complainant, the general climate of impunity for the perpetrators of torture and the judiciary’s lack of independence in Tunisia render any remedy ineffective.10 The complainant was the victim of arbitrariness in the Tunisian legal system, in that she was sentenced to a term of imprisonment following a summary trial without due process. There was no investigation into the facts in the case, she was not told what she was being charged with, she had no access to a lawyer and there was no prosecutor at the trial.11 The judge did not take into account the violence inflicted on the complainant, even though she appeared before her in an extremely fragile and disturbed state.12 The penalty imposed was disproportionate and the complainant was not formally notified of her conviction: all she had done was to criticize an official for careless behaviour, but her words were taken as an attack.13 After sentencing her to three months’ imprisonment, the judge reduced the sentence after the plainclothes policeman intervened, since the complainant would not “do it again”. This interference in the administration of justice is evidence of the lack of separation of the judicial and executive powers. 3.7 In conclusion, the complainant alleges that Tunisian legislation theoretically provides remedies for individuals in situations like hers, but in practice they are futile and inadequate. Accordingly, the complainant had no access to a domestic remedy that could be expected to give her any relief. The requirements of article 22 of the Convention have therefore been met and the complaint is admissible. 3.8 The complainant claims that, with regard to the alleged violation of articles 1 and 2 taken together, the State party failed in its duty to take effective measures to prevent acts of torture and used its own security forces to submit the complainant to acts comparable to acts of torture. The aim was to punish and intimidate her because of what she had said to the official. The abuse to which the complainant was subjected was, in her view, comparable in its gravity to that in other 10 See footnote 6 above. 11 According to counsel, this violates article 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the assistance of a counsel for the defence is compulsory in the court of first instance … when it is ruling on a criminal offence … if the accused does not select a counsel, the president of the court will appoint one of his own accord”), as well as principles 10, 17 and 18 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 43/173 of 9 December 1988. See also general comment No. 20 of the Human Rights Committee, para. 11. 12 Counsel refers to the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, of the Council of Europe, which requires the judge to take appropriate steps if there are any signs of ill-treatment (CPT Standards, CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1, para. 45). 13 Counsel refers to communication No. 1189/2003, Fernando v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 31 March 2005, in which the Human Rights Committee found that there had been a violation by the State party of article 9 of the Covenant in that the author had been sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment for raising his voice in court and refusing to apologize.