CAT/C/41/D/291/2006 page 18 the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecutor set out written petitions for further investigations, including a summons sent to the complainant at her current residence in France. The investigating judge therefore undertook further measures by ordering, on 29 June 2007, an international letter of request to transmit a summons to the complainant in France, for her to present herself before the judge on 14 August 2007. The case is still under way. The State party requests the Committee to defer its decision on the merits pending the completion of the investigation. 10. On 30 August 2007, the complainant said that the State party had adduced no new argument. Regarding the State party’s contesting the lack of effective remedy in Tunisia, the complainant notes that the State has not furnished any evidence in support of its allegations. The complainant contests the State party’s affirmation that the case is still under way, since she has not received any communication on that subject. If there had been any developments in the State party, she would have been informed by her Tunisian lawyer, who confirms that he is not aware of any new development and has not been contacted by the Tunisian authorities in this case. Consequently, the State party’s claims that there have been developments in the national proceedings must also be considered as completely unfounded. Additional observations by the State party 11.1 On 25 October 2007, the State party presented copies of judgements that provide irrefutable proof that the Tunisian judicial authorities do not hesitate to prosecute cases of abuse of power by law enforcement agents, particularly acts of violence and ill-treatment, and to impose severe penalties if they are found guilty. Since criminal proceedings are without prejudice to the authorities’ right to initiate disciplinary proceedings against officials, on the principle that criminal and disciplinary offences may be tried separately, the perpetrators of such offences are also generally subjected to disciplinary measures resulting in dismissal. The State party also lists cases brought against police and prison officers and officers of the National Guard in the Tunisian courts between 2000 and 2006. The State party states that it has always endeavoured to set up the necessary mechanisms to protect human rights, particularly monitoring and inspection mechanisms, while facilitating access to justice. In addition, human rights training courses for law enforcement agents have been introduced. This information shows that domestic remedies are effective and efficient. The State party points out that judicial proceedings are under way and that exhaustion of domestic remedies is a fundamental principle of international law. It requests the Committee to defer its decision for a reasonable period to allow the domestic courts to fully investigate the events referred to in the complaint. The complainant’s persistence compels the State party to reveal some elements of the case that raise questions as to the complainant’s credibility. 11.2 Firstly, the State party notes that the medical certificate corresponding to the complainant’s visit to Charles Nicole hospital is dated 24 July 2004 and refers to events that occurred on 23 July 2004, whereas her complaint states that she went to the hospital the day after the alleged events, that is, 23 July 2004. This double contradiction of the facts as reported by the complainant herself is such that it eliminates any causal link between the injuries she alleges and her appearance at the court of first instance in Tunis. Secondly, according to a statement by one of the complainant’s fellow detainees, taken by the investigating judge, the complainant had tried to bribe her, offering her money to make a false statement on her behalf to the effect that the complainant had been subjected to acts of violence by the arresting officers. Thirdly, the