CAT/C/41/D/291/2006 page 13 5. On 9 February 2007, counsel for the complainant said that, despite having had nine months in which to reply to the complainant’s allegations, the State party had addressed neither the admissibility nor the merits of the communication. As far as admissibility was concerned, the State party simply stated that the complainant’s case was the subject of an internal judicial procedure without producing any evidence or details of the existence of such a procedure - such as judicial or procedural files or other official documents - or even indicating the type and nature of the procedure or whether the procedure was likely to result in a legal remedy that might satisfy the requirements of the Convention, in accordance with rule 109 (9) of the Committee’s rules of procedure.27 Moreover, the State party made no comment on the merits of the case. Additional observations by the State party 6.1 With regard to the admissibility of the complaint, on 30 March 2007 the State party indicated that all necessary measures had been taken, at the current stage of the procedure, to enable the complainant to substantiate the claims in her complaint. As soon as the Tunisian authorities had been notified by the Committee of the complainant’s communication, the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, acting in accordance with article 23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, referred the matter to the State prosecutor of the Tunis court of first instance. The preliminary inquiries were conducted by the Tunis prosecution service, which undertook the necessary investigations: the evidence collected was insufficient to justify a prosecution and the prosecution service decided on 27 June 2006 to open a preliminary judicial investigation, and ordered an investigating judge to investigate the incidents that are the subject of the complaint, including the circumstances of the arrest of the complainant on 22 July 2004 and the alleged incidents in relation thereto. The case was registered with the investigating judge as case No. 5873/4.28 According to information received from the public prosecutor’s office, the investigating judge proceeded to hear several witnesses and question individuals implicated by the complainant, and also seized documents that could be used as evidence. The matter is taking its course in accordance with the law pending completion of the investigation. 6.2 In its desire not to interfere in a matter that falls under the jurisdiction of the courts and not to influence the normal course of the investigation, the State party explains that it has refrained from submitting, at this stage of the procedure, any comments on the merits of the case, which would be contrary to the universally accepted principle of non-disclosure of the confidential findings of an investigation. The State party has restricted itself to the above-mentioned points pending the conclusion of the investigation, which, at this late stage of the procedure, should be completed shortly. 27 “… the State party is required to give details of the effective remedies available to the alleged victim in the particular circumstances of the case …”. 28 The State party attaches a registration certificate and an unofficial translation into French: “The registrar responsible for the fourth investigations office of the court of first instance in Tunis hereby certifies that the case registered as No. 5873/4, concerning the investigation of an unknown person in accordance with article 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the purposes of determining the circumstances of the arrest of Ms. Saadia Ben Ali on 22 July 2004 and the alleged events in relation thereto, is still under investigation.”