CAT/C/41/D/291/2006 page 19 complaint states that, immediately after her arrest on 22 July 2004, the complainant tried to use her mobile phone to call ACAT. Such a reaction immediately following her arrest suggests a premeditated act and a strategy planned in advance to simulate an incident that would provide the opportunity to submit a complaint against the Tunisian authorities. Fourthly, the hearing of the complainant’s fellow detainees showed that she had not been subjected to ill-treatment. In this regard, the State party refers to its comments of 31 July 2007 as well as to summonses sent to the complainant at her addresses in Tunisia and France. This attests to the diligence with which the judge handling the case has been proceeding, despite the complainant’s prevarication. The judge organized a hearing of the persons involved in the case, notably the police officers on duty on the date of the events at the centre of the complaint and the fellow detainees whose names were listed in the prisoners’ register kept at the court of first instance in Tunis. Deliberations of the Committee on admissibility 12.1 At its thirty-ninth session, the Committee considered the admissibility of the complaint and, in a decision of 7 November 2007, declared it admissible. 12.2 The Committee ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter had not been and was not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 12.3 With respect to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee noted that the State party challenged the admissibility of the complaint on the grounds that available and effective domestic remedies had not been exhausted. In the present case, the Committee noted that the State party had provided a description of the remedies available, under law, to any complainant. Nonetheless, the Committee considered that the State party had not sufficiently demonstrated the relevance of its arguments to the specific circumstances of the case of this complainant. In particular, the Committee took note of the information provided by the complainant on the complaint she had instructed the lawyer to file with the prosecutor’s office on 30 July 2004. The Committee considered that the insurmountable procedural impediment faced by the complainant as a result of the refusal to allow the lawyer to register the complaint rendered the application of a remedy that could bring effective relief to the complainant unlikely. Such a refusal rendered the State’s suggested consultation of the complaint registers completely ineffectual. The Committee also noted that the State party, in its observations, indicated that an investigation was under way, but that it provided no new information or evidence that would allow the Committee to judge the potential effectiveness of that investigation, which had been launched on 27 June 2006, almost two years after the alleged incidents had taken place. The Committee concluded that, in the circumstances, the domestic proceedings had been unreasonably prolonged and considered that in the present case there was little chance that the exhaustion of domestic remedies would give satisfaction to the complainant. 12.4 The Committee took note of the State party’s argument that submission of the complaint by the complainant was unjustified. The Committee considered that any report of torture was a serious matter and that only through consideration of the merits could it be determined whether or not the allegations were defamatory. With respect to article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention and rule 107 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, the Committee saw no further obstacle to the admissibility of the complaint.