CAT/C/41/D/291/2006 page 22 they do not contain the statements as delivered by the witnesses but purport to be a summary thereof. The witnesses’ actual statements remain unknown. These records therefore have no evidentiary value. 14.3 The complainant notes that, on 7 January 2008, on the conclusion of the hearings, she requested a copy of the complete file, including the records, but her request was refused. She was thus denied the opportunity to refute the State party’s arguments and to submit to the Committee evidence from the file substantiating her complaint. She points out that, in its annual report on human rights practices, the United States Department of State expressed concern about the prevalence of this type of practice in Tunisia.37 The applicant disputes categorically the veracity of the statements made by the witnesses during the confrontation. For this reason, she refused to sign the record of the hearings, and she explained clearly to the investigating judge why she was doing so. 14.4 According to the State party, the complainant stated “explicitly” before the investigating judge that she had never filed a complaint of ill-treatment. She notes, however, that the record of her evidence makes no reference whatever to any such statement on her part. Likewise, the State party asserts that she admitted having tried to bribe one of her fellow detainees. Yet the record contains no mention of any such statement by the complainant. The State party’s assertions are thus false and without foundation. 14.5 The complainant notes that certain documents submitted by the State party are incomplete, ending with unfinished sentences. She comments that the State party’s observations contain inaccuracies. The State party asserts that the complainant’s fellow detainees reaffirmed that she had not been subjected to any ill-treatment while being held in the court’s jail. It is clear, however, on reading the record of their evidence, that the witnesses confirmed that they had not seen the complainant being ill-treated. 14.6 The complainant stresses that she did indeed make a complaint to the domestic courts, through her Tunisian counsel. She points out that she transmitted a copy of the complaint to the Committee. She rejects the allegation that she tried to bribe a witness. The investigating judge never took evidence from the witness in question. The accusation is thus illogical. 14.7 Regarding her brother’s evidence, the complainant explains that she was too shocked and traumatized by the acts of torture and ill-treatment to which she had just been subjected to inform her family immediately of what had occurred. The injuries she sustained were to parts of her body that were covered by clothing, specifically her left arm, foot, buttocks, right wrist and head (but not her face), and could not therefore be seen by her family.38 She explained all of these facts to the investigating judge. She comments that her relationship with her family is strained and that she did not therefore feel able to reveal to them the intimate details of the abuse 37 See United States Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2007, Tunisia, 11 March 2008. 38 The complainant cites the medical certificates attached to the initial complaint.