"real" suspects. In addition, the examination of witnesses is carried out exclusively before the competent examining magistrate, in his office and without any criminal investigation officer being present. 10.3 As regards civil procedure, the State party points out a flagrant contradiction on the part of the author. On the one hand, he considers Jamel Baraket as being "legally responsible" for the entire Baraket family, while at the same time he mentions that Mohamed El Hedi is 27 years old. In Tunisia the age of majority is 20. Consequently, Jamel Baraket cannot be legally responsible for adult relatives, except where the courts have declared them legally incompetent by reason of insanity. He is not even the legal representative of his close relatives, as to date he has not cited a legally valid authorization. 10.4 The lawyer Mohamed Ahmed El Marhoul did not appear "out of the blue" in the civil proceedings, as the author claims. The father of the late Faisal Baraket, who has since died, engaged him to pursue an action for compensation following a road accident, on his behalf and on behalf of all the other heirs. None of the heirs had recourse to the law to challenge his authority. In any event, the relations between a lawyer and his clients fall within the sphere of private law and are not subject to any supervision on the part of the Government. If not all those entitled to compensation have yet received it, that is not because they have been subjected to pressure by the lawyer, but because they are being manipulated by the author of the communication. 10.5 Lastly, as regards the situation of the wife of one of the "witnesses", she has been prosecuted in keeping with normal legal procedures for offences under the ordinary law. Consideration on the merits 11.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 11.2 It also notes that the author of the communication claims that the State party has violated articles 2, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Convention. 11.3 Regarding articles 11 and 14, the Committee considers that the documents communicated to it furnish no proof that the State party has failed to discharge its obligations under these provisions of the Convention. 11.4 As regards article 12 of the Convention, the Committee notes first that study of the information forwarded by the parties points to the following established facts: The victim Faisal Baraket did indeed die no later than 11 November 1991, the date of the order for an autopsy; dying, according to the author of the communication, as a result of his arrest, or, according to the State party, as a result of a road accident caused by an unknown person. In October 1991, the State party received allegations that Faisal Baraket died as a result of torture from the following non-governmental organizations: Amnesty International, World Organization against Torture, Action of Christians for the Abolition of Torture (France) and Association for the Prevention of Torture (Switzerland). On 13 July 1992, a report prepared by the Higher Committee for Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, an official Tunisian body, considered Faisal Baraket's death to be suspicious and suggested that an inquiry should be begun under article 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 74