CRPD/C/20/D/38/2016 have any contact with him. The public prosecutor requested the death penalty against the author. 2.6 As regards exhaustion of domestic remedies concerning the acts of torture, abuse and violence and the State party’s failure to provide him with access to the necessary medical treatment, the author submits that his family did not initially submit a complaint to the Saudi Human Rights Commission4 because they considered that such a complaint would be futile and result in retaliation. In this connection, the author makes reference to public reports according to which the Commission is unable to adequately represent the interests of victims of human rights violations insofar as it “appears to defer to the government agency targeted by the complaint. In detailing anonymized information about individual complaints dealing with torture and arbitrary detention, the Commission’s 1433 AH report repeatedly states that the complaints are either under the agency’s investigation, or that the agency’s reply has been satisfactory.”5 2.7 The author cannot apply for relief from the Saudi judicial system because it is complicit in the violations that he has suffered. According to a public report, “in addition to the adverse conditions resulting from overcrowding, allegations of direct acts of torture have emerged from within prisons”. It is also stated in the report that “shortages of, and improperly trained, wardens; lack of access to prompt medical treatment when requested; holding prisoners beyond the end of their sentences; and failure to inform prisoners of their legal rights” are “conditions that facilitate an environment in which government officials can violate the provisions of the Convention against Torture with impunity”.6 2.8 The author further submits that his family does not have access to a medical certificate to substantiate the claims of torture, as the Government of Saudi Arabia is complicit in his abuse and State agents acting in their official capacity perpetrated it. He argues that the State party therefore did not provide the family with medical documents that could incriminate them, in line with the prevailing practice in the State party to cover up torture by the State party’s authorities and guarantee the impunity of such acts. The complaint 3.1 The author submits that, when he was detained by the State party, he already had a partial hearing impairment in his right hear. He therefore considers that his case falls within the competence of the Committee. 3.2 He submits that the acts of torture that he suffered when he was detained and during his detention worsened his disability. In this connection, he alleges that, by slapping him around the ears during the torture, the State officials further damaged his already impaired hearing in violation of article 15 of the Convention. He further considers that the treatment 4 5 6 reported caseload remain cloaked in secrecy. Nonetheless, information on specific cases has been easier to come by in recent years. This is partly a result of Riyadh’s greater interest in publicizing measures against activity it defines as a state security crime. … The Specialized Criminal Court was provided with its own codified jurisdiction in February 2014 with the promulgation of the Penal Law for Crimes of Terrorism and Its Financing. By July 2009, the kingdom announced that the Specialized Criminal Court had tried 330 of the defendants, and found all but a few guilty of supporting and financing terrorism, fighting in foreign conflicts, conspiracy to disrupt the kingdom’s security, and other similar charges.” See also “Saudi terror trials reach verdict”, BBC News, 8 July 2009; and United States of America, Department of State, “2009 country reports on human rights practices: Saudi Arabia” (11 March 2010) and “2010 country reports on human rights practices: Saudi Arabia” (8 April 2011). In his comments on the State party’s observations, the author indicated that his family had submitted a complaint to the Saudi Human Rights Commission, but to no avail (see paras. 5.4 and 8.6). The author refers to Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain, “Mapping the Saudi State, chapter 9: national human rights institutions” (Washington, D.C., 2015), p. 6. The author refers to a report according to which the Saudi judicial system relies upon and encourages the use of torture, see Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain and Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy, “The basis of brutality; a report on the implementation of Saudi Arabia’s recommendations from the committee against torture” (Washington, D.C., August 2015), pp. 13–14. The author also refers to two opinions on similar cases (opinions No. 12/2015 and No. 32/2014) from the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, relating to the alleged complicity of the Saudi criminal justice system in human rights violations, including torture. 3