CAT/C/39/D/269/2005 page 10 8.2 The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The State party had requested the Committee to declare the complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the complainant had abused the right to submit such a communication and had not exhausted all available domestic remedies. The complainant for his part contested the arguments put forward by the State party, asserting not only that his submission to the Committee was not abusive, but also that his approaches to the Tunisian authorities stood no chance of success. 8.4 On the question of abuse raised by the State party, the Committee pointed out that in order for there to be abuse of the right to raise a matter before the Committee under article 22 of the Convention, one of the following conditions must be met: the submission of a matter to the Committee must amount to malice or a display of bad faith or intent at least to mislead, or be frivolous; or the acts or omissions referred to must have nothing to do with the Convention. In the present case, however, it had been ascertained that the complainant had reported being tortured and/or ill-treated by policemen in the street or at a police station, and had accused the State party of violating provisions of the Convention. 8.5 Regarding the contention that the complaint should not be entertained owing to the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, while taking into consideration the State party’s description of its legal and court system, the Committee noted that the incident in question had taken place on 26 April 2000 at El Manar 1 police station; that the only investigations had been conducted by the chief of the security service of the Tunis district and by the Public Prosecutor, who had eventually filed the complaint with no further action; that by the date the complaint was submitted to the Committee against Torture, 6 July 2005 (over five years after the incident), no substantive decision had been reached; and that that was an abnormally long delay before dealing with extremely serious acts which qualify as crimes attracting severe penalties under Tunisian law. In the light of the above, the Committee considered that the requirements of article 22, paragraph 5, of the Convention, had been met. 8.6 The Committee against Torture therefore decided that the communication was admissible in respect of articles 2, paragraph 1, read in conjunction with 1; 16, paragraph 1; 11, 12, 13 and 14, read separately or in conjunction with 16, paragraph 1. State party’s observations 9.1 On 2 March 2007 the State party repeated that no provision of the Convention had been violated and expressed surprise that the Committee should have found the complaint admissible. It points out that a complaint to the Committee should not allow the complainant to evade the consequences of his own negligence and his failure to exhaust available domestic remedies. 9.2 The Committee had found that no substantive decision had been reached more than five years after the complainant had complained to the authorities, but the State party stresses that it was several serious omissions on the part of the complainant that had led the Public Prosecutor to file the case: failure to attach a medical certificate or provide sufficient details