CAT/C/39/D/269/2005 page 13 14. On 13 September 2007, the complainant again stated that the State party was merely reiterating earlier observations. He repeated that the State party bore sole responsibility for the lack of progress in the domestic proceedings. He recalled that the State party had even denied him legal assistance when he had been called before the examining magistrate, a point, moreover, that was not contested by the State party. Denial of access to a lawyer was a violation of Tunisian law. 15. On 25 October 2007, the State party again requested that the Committee postpone its decision on the merits until the investigation had been completed and all domestic remedies exhausted. It recalled that, contrary to the complainant’s assertions, the judicial authority had shown due diligence by ordering: − That a preliminary investigation be opened on the basis of a complaint that was not supported by any evidence; − That the investigation be conducted personally by a member of the Prosecutor’s Office without the assistance of the criminal investigation service; − That, despite the decision by the Prosecutor’s Office to file the case, a judicial investigation had been opened even though it might never lead to any result owing to the complainant’s attitude of non-cooperation. On the last point, the State party recalled that under Tunisian law a witness was not entitled to legal assistance and that the complainant would not have qualified as an “assisted witness” on account of his status as a possible victim. The examining magistrate in charge of the case had summoned the complainant to appear at a hearing scheduled for 16 October 2007, but the latter had failed to appear. Consideration of the merits 16.1 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. 16.2 The Committee takes note of the State party’s comments of 2 March, 12 April and 15 May 2007 challenging the admissibility of the complaint. While taking note of the State party’s request of 25 October 2007 for a postponement, it finds that the points raised by the State party are not such as to require the Committee to review its decision on admissibility, owing in particular to the lack of any convincing new or additional information from the State party concerning the failure to reach any decision on the complaint after more than seven years of lis alibi pendens, which in the Committee’s opinion justifies the view that the exhaustion of domestic remedies was unreasonably prolonged (see paragraph 8.5 above). The Committee therefore sees no reason to reverse its decision on admissibility. 16.3 The Committee therefore proceeds to a consideration on the merits and notes that the complainant alleges violations by the State party of article 2, paragraph 1, read in conjunction with article 1; article 16, paragraph 1; and articles 11, 12, 13 and 14, read separately or in conjunction with article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention.