CAT/C/39/D/269/2005 page 4 the two Ministers themselves who had mistreated the complainant. On 22 August 2000 the complainant mailed his complaint back to the Public Prosecutor’s office. On 4 September 2000 he delivered it to the office in person. He received no reply. No investigation has been opened since. 2.6 The applicant has been subjected to nearly constant police surveillance since 26 April 2000. Plain-clothes policemen are nearly always posted in front of his home. His telephone line is often cut, and he suspects that the police have tapped it. He was again assaulted by police officers on 8 June 2004 when he tried to register the organization that he had co-founded, ATLT. The complaint 3.1 The complainant alleges a violation of article 2, read in conjunction with article 1, of the Convention, on the grounds that the State party not only failed in its obligation to take effective measures to prevent acts of torture, but also used its own police forces to subject him to such acts. The State party intentionally inflicted on the complainant treatment tantamount to torture with the aim of punishing him for his human rights activities and intimidating him into halting such activities. He notes that the seriousness of the ill-treatment is comparable to that of other cases where the Committee has found that the ill-treatment constituted torture under article 1.1 Furthermore, the gravity of the ill-treatment must be assessed taking into account the victim’s age, his state of health and the resulting permanent physical and mental effects of the ill-treatment. He points out that at the time of the incidents he was 67 years old and suffered from prostate problems. 3.2 The complainant considers that the State party violated article 11, on the grounds that the authorities not only failed to exercise their supervisory powers to prevent torture, but actually resorted to torture themselves. The State party thus clearly failed to exercise a systematic review of rules, instructions, methods and practices with a view to preventing any cases of torture. 3.3 The complainant alleges that he has been a victim of a violation of articles 12 and 13 taken together, on the grounds that the State party did not carry out an investigation into the acts of torture committed against him, despite abundant evidence that public officials had perpetrated such acts. He filed complaints, and several international organizations made official statements mentioning his case and describing the ill-treatment inflicted by the Tunisian police. He further notes that according to the Committee’s case law, a mere allegation of torture by the victim is sufficient to require an investigation by the authorities.2 1 See communication No. 207/2002, Dimitrijevic v. Serbia and Montenegro, decision adopted on 24 November 2004, paras. 2.1, 2.2 and 5.3. 2 See communication No. 59/1996, Blanco Abad v. Spain, decision adopted on 14 May 1998, para. 8.6.