CAT/C/31/D/187/2001 Page 6 3.1 The complainant maintains that the Tunisian Government has breached the following articles of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: Article 1. The practices described above, such as the “roast chicken” position, the “upside-down” position, the “scorpion” position, immersion torture, “table torture” and solitary confinement, to which the complainant was subjected, constitute acts of torture. Article 2, paragraph 1. Not only has the State party failed to take effective measures to prevent torture, it has even mobilized its administrative machinery and, in particular, its police force as an instrument of torture against the complainant. Article 4. The State party has not ensured that all the acts of torture to which the complainant has been subjected are offences under its criminal law. Article 5. The State party has instituted no legal proceedings against those responsible for torturing the complainant. Article 12. The State party has not carried out an investigation of the acts of torture committed against the complainant. Article 13. The State party has not undertaken any examination of the allegations of torture made by the complainant at the beginning of his trial; instead, these have been dismissed. Article 14. The State party has ignored the complainant’s right to make a complaint and has thereby deprived him of his right to redress and rehabilitation. Article 15. The complainant was sentenced on 28 August 1992 to a prison sentence on the basis of a confession obtained as a result of torture. Article 16. The repressive measures and practices described above, such as violation of the right to medical care and medicine and the right to send and receive mail, restriction of the right to property and the right to visits by family members and lawyers, house arrest and harassment of the family, applied by the State party against the complainant constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 4 December 2001, the State party challenged the admissibility of the complaint on the grounds that the complainant has neither employed nor exhausted available domestic remedies. 4.2 The State party maintains that the complainant may still have recourse to the available domestic remedies, since, under Tunisian law, the limitation period for acts alleged to be, and characterized as, serious offences is 10 years.