CAT/C/41/D/291/2006 page 20 12.5 The Committee against Torture consequently decided that the communication was admissible with regard to 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. State party’s observations on the merits 13.1 On 23 January 2008, the State party argued that the Committee’s decision on admissibility was based solely on the “misleading statements” of the complainant’s Tunisian counsel. The new evidence obtained through the investigation, however, showed those statements to be unfounded. Indeed, when the complainant was heard by the investigating judge handling the case on 11 December 2007, she stated explicitly that “she had never filed a complaint of ill-treatment with the State prosecutor in Tunis because she was not aware of the procedures, nor had she instructed a lawyer to do so”.34 This revelation raises numerous questions, moreover, about the unstated motives of the complainant, who seems to have pursued international remedies in preference to domestic judicial ones. According to the State party, the domestic proceedings have not been unreasonably prolonged, as no complaint was ever received by the national judicial authorities, and those authorities decided to open a judicial investigation without delay, as soon as they had been notified by the Committee of the complainant’s communication on 27 June 2006. This being the case, the complainant’s Tunisian counsel twisted the facts in order to mislead the Committee. For all these reasons, the State party invites the Committee to reconsider its decision declaring the complainant’s communication admissible. 13.2 The State party provides additional evidence revealed during the hearing by the investigating judge of the complainant, her brother and all the law enforcement officers on duty on the day of the incident at the court of first instance in Tunis, and during the confrontation of the complainant and the witnesses. When she was heard on 11 December 2007, the complainant repeated her version of events, as presented to the Committee. She admitted, however, that she had tried to bribe one of her fellow detainees, asking the woman to testify in her favour in exchange for an unspecified gift. During his hearing by the investigating judge on 4 January 2008, the complainant’s brother confirmed that she had accompanied him to the court of first instance in Tunis on 22 July 2004. He explained that he was not present, however, during the events that gave rise to the complaint, as he had gone to have coffee, and that he had only learned of her altercation with the registrar on his return to the court. He went to the prosecutor’s office, where he found his sister waiting to be brought before the prosecutor. He then decided to go home. Furthermore, he told the investigating judge that, when she returned home, his sister bore no sign of violence, and she did not inform any family member of the ill-treatment to which she had allegedly been subjected at the court. He added that his sister behaved normally on her return from the court and did not mention having been to the hospital clinic to seek treatment.35 The State party reports that, during the hearing of the law enforcement officers on duty at the 34 The State party cites an annex in Arabic attached to its observations. 35 Idem.