CAT/C/39/D/269/2005 page 11 about the policemen accused and the witnesses cited, and failure to follow up on his complaint. The absence of convincing evidence and details of the full names and addresses of witnesses, in addition to the accused’s denial of the facts as related by the complainant, made it impossible to take a decision on the substance of the complaint. 9.3 The State party believes it has explained the available remedies that are still open to the complainant. Since criminal proceedings are not yet time-barred, the complainant can still bring judicial proceedings. The State party is emphatic that there is no question that domestic remedies are effective. As it has indicated in earlier submissions, both disciplinary and judicial sanctions have been imposed on officials where liability has been established. In this case, the Committee could have recommended that the complainant should initiate proceedings and exhaust domestic remedies in accordance with the Convention. The State party therefore requests that the Committee review its position in light of these considerations. The State party submits no observations on the merits. Further comments by the parties 10. On 28 March 2007 the complainant pointed out that the State party was merely repeating the comments it has already made on admissibility and had put forward no observations on the merits. 11. On 12 April 2007, the State party again regretted the Committee’s attitude in finding the complaint admissible despite all the State party’s clarifications. It reported that further steps had been taken in line with rule 111 of the Committee’s rules of procedure. In accordance with article 23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecutor at the Tunis Court of Appeal had asked the Public Prosecutor at the lower court in Tunis to provide information on the facts of the complaint. A preliminary inquiry had thus been opened against such persons as might be indicated by the inquiry, to be carried out by the judge in charge of the 10th investigating office of the lower court in Tunis. The case had been registered with the investigating judge as No. 8696/10.11 Pending the outcome of the judicial investigation and in light of the measures taken by the authorities, the State party invited the Committee to review its decision on admissibility. 12.1 On 20 April 2007, the complainant noted that the State party’s observations were now irrelevant since a decision on admissibility had already been taken. The State party was simply repeating the arguments it had previously put forward. However, the complainant noted that concerning several of his allegations the State party had provided information that was not correct. He had submitted his first complaint to the Tunisian authorities in June 2000. Instead of 11 According to the registration certificate enclosed, which has been translated into French, “The registrar responsible for the 10th investigating office of the court of first instance in Tunis hereby certifies that the case registered as No. 8696/10, concerning the investigation of such persons as may be indicated by the investigation, in accordance with article 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the purposes of determining the circumstances of the arrest of Mr. Ali Ben Salem on 26 April 2000, at the El Manar 1 police station, Tunis, and the alleged events in relation thereto, is still under investigation.”