CAT/C/41/D/291/2006 page 10 take effective measures to curb this practice.17 According to the complainant, acts of torture and ill-treatment continue to take place and the Committee has mentioned several provisions of the State party’s legal system that are not applied in practice, including the 10-day maximum period for pretrial detention and the obligation to have a medical examination carried out when there are allegations of torture.18 The constant denial of these allegations by the State party contributes to a climate of impunity for those responsible and encourages the continuation of the practices in question. It follows that the State party has violated article 2, paragraph 1, read in conjunction with article 1. 3.11 With regard to the alleged violation of article 11, the complainant claims that the acts of torture to which she was subjected were not an isolated incident or mistake. According to her, the widespread use of torture by the Tunisian security forces has been widely documented, but the serious concerns expressed by the Committee and other treaty bodies19 about practices affecting detainees do not seem to have led to a review of the standards and methods that could put an end to such abuse. According to the complainant, the gap between the law and practice in Tunisia indicates that the State party is not keeping under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices with a view to preventing any cases of torture. The State party is thereby in breach of article 11, taken either on its own or in conjunction with article 16, paragraph 1. 3.12 The complainant goes on to claim, in respect of the alleged violation of article 12, that the Committee’s jurisprudence on cases of torture and ill-treatment has elaborated on the obligation to carry out an investigation whenever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed.20 This obligation exists whatever the grounds for the suspicions. The complainant notes that the Committee has considered that allegations of torture are of such seriousness that a State party has an obligation to proceed automatically to a prompt and impartial investigation as soon as there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed.21 In cases involving allegations of torture, it is not even necessary to submit a formal complaint. It is sufficient for the victim to bring the facts to the attention of the authorities 17 See footnote 6. 18 Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture, A/54/44 (1999), paras. 97 and 98. Counsel points out that these concerns were referred to by the Human Rights Committee in its concluding observations on Tunisia’s report in 1995 (A/50/40 (1995)). 19 Including those expressed by the Committee against Torture and the Human Rights Committee after their consideration of the State party’s reports. 20 Counsel refers to communications No. 187/2001, Dhaou Belgacem Thabti v. Tunisia, Views adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 10.4; No. 60/1996, Baraket v. Tunisia, Views adopted on 10 November 1999, para. 11.7; and No. 59/1996, Encarnación Blanco Abad v. Spain, Views adopted on 14 May 1998, para. 8.6. 21 Communication No. 187/2001, Dhaou Belgacem Thabti v. Tunisia, Views adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 10.4.