CAT/C/47/D/368/2008 of Ceuta decided to withdraw from the case and to refer it to the National High Court. • On 12 February 2009, the Chief Counsel for the State notified Examining Court No. 1 of Ceuta that a complaint had been submitted to the Committee against Torture. 6.4 The State party considers that the facts set out in the complaint do not reveal the occurrence of torture or ill-treatment, but rather an unfortunate accident that occurred when the Civil Guard patrol assisted several persons who were swimming in the sea and took them close to shore. It asserts that the events took place in Moroccan waters, that the persons picked up by the vessel were left in an area very close to the shore, that the Civil Guard officers did not puncture the dinghies of Mr. Sonko and his companions, and that Mr. Sonko was assisted by the Civil Guard officers, who used resuscitation techniques on him. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 7.1 On 3 July 2009, the complainant submitted her comments on the observations submitted by the State party. 7.2 She argues that judicial remedies have been exhausted, since Proceeding No. 1135/2007 was closed on 23 April 2009. The complainant has attached a sworn statement by Mrs. Abderrahaman, the attorney for Mr. Dao Touré, who was a witness in the proceedings initiated by Examining Court No. 1 of Ceuta concerning the death of Mr. Sonko, in which she states that the Attorney General of Ceuta informed her on 23 April 2009 that: “In relation to your submission dated 6 April 2009 […] regarding DON DAO TOURE and his role as a witness in Summary Proceedings No. 1135/07, I hereby inform you that a final dismissal order concerning these proceedings has been issued and has not been appealed against, and there is therefore no need for you to make a court appearance.” 7.3 She contends that the statements made by the State party regarding the notification of Mr. Sonko’s family members are untrue. Since the opening of proceedings in October 2007, no notification has been sent to his sister, who is the person directly affected by them. The notification sent on 5 January 2009 to Mr. Jankoba Coly, a cousin of Mr. Sonko, came one and a half years after the proceedings were initiated. In this connection, the complainant invokes the second sentence of article 107, subparagraph (e), of the Committee’s rules of procedure. She also contends that the competent authorities prevented the only living witness present in Spain, Mr. Dao Touré, from appearing in court and testifying. 7.4 She maintains that, under domestic law, the investigation of an offence, the initiation of legal proceedings and the task of carrying those proceedings forward are the responsibility of the State. Consequently, the State party’s allegations as to the supposed obligation of the complainant to move the proceedings forward or to be in attendance at them lack legal merit. Additional observations of the State party on admissibility and on the merits 8.1 On 28 May 2011, the State party supplied additional information concerning the current status of the judicial proceedings. 8.2 The State party adds that, in a decision issued on 28 November 2008, Examining Court No. 1 of Ceuta agreed to notify the family members of Mr. Sonko, specifically his sister, Mrs. Jankoba Coly, of the order issued on 28 September 2007. 8.3 On 31 March 2009, the National High Court declared the referral of the case to it by Examining Court No. 1 of Ceuta invalid, referring the proceedings back to the examining 8 GE.12-40869