CAT/C/41/D/291/2006 page 17 the State party has not met this burden of proof because it has merely described the theoretical availability of remedies without contradicting any of the numerous pieces of evidence provided by the complainant to show that these remedies are not available in practice.33 Additional observations by the State party and additional comments by the complainant 8.1 On 27 April 2007, regarding the complaint that the complainant claims to have filed on 30 July 2004 through her representative, the State party maintained that the file contains no credible evidence confirming her allegations. The rules of evidence exclude the attribution of evidentiary weight to certificates and documents drawn up on the complainant’s own behalf. Consultation of the complaints register, the IT database and registered mail of the office of the Tunis prosecution service shows no record of the filing of the complaint. The prosecution service’s alleged refusal to receive the complaint would in no way have prevented the complainant from filing the complaint by any means that would leave a written record. 8.2 On 2 May 2007, the complainant pointed out that the submission of a written affidavit constitutes a generally accepted form of evidence. She reiterated her previous arguments and said that the State party was deliberately refraining from recording complaints of official misconduct. Additional observations by the State party and additional comments by the complainant 9.1 On 31 July 2007, the State party said that Tunisian legislation provides for severe penalties against perpetrators of torture and ill-treatment. Numerous examples demonstrate that recourse to the Tunisian courts in similar cases has been not only possible but also effective. The Tunisian courts have reached decisions in dozens of cases concerning law enforcement officials on various charges. The sentences handed down have ranged from fines to up to 10 years’ unsuspended imprisonment. Provisions are in place for disciplinary measures against law enforcement officials, and they may also be brought before the disciplinary council of the Ministry of the Interior and Local Development. Statistics published by the ministries concerned prove that no pressure or intimidation is used to prevent victims from filing complaints, and that there is no impunity. 9.2 The State party points out that the complainant’s case remains under examination, and domestic remedies have therefore not been exhausted. The State party points out that it has consistently provided the Committee with all available information on the question, as well as on the preliminary investigation conducted by the Tunis prosecution service and the preparatory examination assigned to one of the investigating judges of the Tunis court of first instance (case No. 5873/4). On 8 May 2007, the investigating judge communicated the whole procedure to the public prosecutor, after having heard several witnesses, questioned the persons accused by the complainant and seized documents that could constitute evidence. Pursuant to article 104 of 33 The complainant refers to her initial communication, as well as the chapter on Tunisia in the World Report 2007 by Human Rights Watch, in which it is stated that: “Prosecutors and judges usually turn a blind eye to torture allegations, even when the subject of formal complaints submitted by lawyers.”