CRPD/C/20/D/38/2016 State party’s additional observations on admissibility 7.1 On 4 May 2017, the State party was requested to submit its observations on the merits of the communication. On 19 June 2017, the State party sent observations, reiterating its position that the communication should be held inadmissible under article 2 (b), (d) and (e) of the Optional Protocol, and that means of domestic redress were available to the author. 7.2 In this connection, the State party provides a list of the domestic authorities to which it considers that the author could address his case, namely the Ministry of the Interior (crimecontrol bodies), the Office of Public Prosecution, the director of the prison in which the author is detained, the competent court, the National Society for Human Rights and the Saudi Human Rights Commission. 7.3 The State party further stresses that a lawyer was appointed for the accused “at the expense of the State due to his poverty”. 7.4 Reminders were sent to the State party requesting that it submit its observations on the merits on 21 June 2017, 25 October 2017 and 17 January 2018. The Committee regrets that this information has not been received. In the absence of the State party’s observations on the merits, the Committee must give due weight to the author’s allegations that have been properly substantiated.12 Author’s comments on State party’s additional observations 8.1 On 26 July 2018, the author provided comments on the State party’s additional observations on admissibility. While referring to his previous comments on admissibility, the author submits that the State party’s observations do not demonstrate that credible domestic alternatives are available to the author. 8.2 In this connection, the author submits that the crime-control bodies of the Ministry of the Interior, or the so-called General Directorate of Investigation, cannot provide an impartial and independent remedy insofar as it is under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior. He adds that his family has already reported his case to an investigator at the Ministry of the Interior, but to no avail. 8.3 As regards the Office of Public Prosecution, the author reiterates his allegation that this entity requested the death penalty against him on the basis of a confession extracted under torture, and in proceedings during which he was denied access to his lawyer. It is one of the authorities against which the author has submitted claims of abuse. The author therefore considers that it cannot be considered as an independent, impartial or appropriate avenue of redress. 8.4 Regarding the prison system, the author submits that he is still being held at the General Directorate of Investigation’s Al Dammam complex, the same facility responsible for his torture. In this context, even if he were able to present a complaint to the facility’s director, his case would be transferred to the Office of Public Prosecution, and can therefore not be considered as an available avenue of redress. 8.5 As far as the “competent court” is concerned, the author assumes that reference is being made to the Specialized Criminal Court, which presided over his case and prevented him from having any contact with his attorney, in violation of his right to due process. The author further submits that this court has not been impartial in his case, and that it is characterized by serious violations of the principles of due process. 8.6 In relation to the Saudi Human Rights Commission and the National Society for Human Rights, the author reiterates that his family has already officially reported his case to the Commission, but to no avail. He submits that both of these official human rights organs suffer from a lack of institutional independence and power to confront the State security 12 6 See, inter alia, Human Rights Committee, El Hassy v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (CCPR/C/91/D/1422/2005) para. 4 and El Alwani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (CCPR/C/90/D/1295/2004), para. 4; Committee on Enforced Disappearances, Deolinda Yrusta and Valle Yrusta. v. Argentina (CED/C/10/D/1/2013) para. 10.1; and Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, X v. United Republic of Tanzania (CRPD/C/18/D/22/2014), para. 6.