CAT/C/39/D/269/2005 page 9 5.4 As regards the argument that his communication constitutes an abuse of the right to submit communications to the Committee, the complainant states that he has merely exercised his right to an effective remedy, that he has no political motivations and has made no defamatory statements against the State party. He notes that the Committee has found that a complainant’s political commitment does not impede consideration of his complaint.10 Additional observations by the parties 6.1 On 26 April 2006 the State party reiterated that the complainant had, since the alleged assault, been blatantly negligent, not least insofar as it had taken over four months for him to file his complaint, he had not enclosed a medical certificate, and he had not given sufficient details concerning the policemen he accused and the witnesses he cited. Besides those major omissions, the complainant had been remiss in following up on the investigation, since at no time after submitting his complaint had he taken the trouble to enquire about the outcome or follow it up. His attitude indicated bad faith and a deliberate intention to make the appeal procedure appear ineffective. The Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, had shown exceptional diligence, considering that complaints not supported by strong evidence are generally filed with no further action. In this case, the Public Prosecutor had examined the complaint the very day it had been submitted; he had noted the absence of a medical certificate and had opted to give the complaint a chance by asking the complainant to supply one. Despite the paucity of evidence, he had on his own initiative undertaken an investigation into the facts as related by the complainant. Despite this diligence, the absence of the complainant from his home, observed on numerous occasions, had seriously hampered the collection of reliable information. 6.2 Regarding the absence of information on the status of the case, the State party explains that the Code of Criminal Procedure calls for no special procedures to notify or inform the complainant when a complaint is filed, and that it is customary and logical for the complainant himself to follow the case. As for the argument that the complainant may be held criminally and civilly liable in the event that proceedings are dismissed in an application for civil indemnities, the State party explains that such a risk exists only if slanderous accusations have been made. On the matter of evidence, it emphasizes that its comments are based entirely on official documents in the case file. 7. On 10 May 2006 the complainant again asserted that he had been diligent and had persevered in his attempts to file a complaint, and the ineffectiveness of the legal steps he had taken was in no way attributable to his conduct. He added that he did not actually have any alternative legal course affording reasonable prospects of satisfaction. Decision of the Committee on admissibility 8.1 The Committee considered the question of the admissibility of the complaint at its thirty-seventh session and, in a decision dated 8 November 2006, pronounced it admissible. 10 See for example communication No. 187/2001, Thabti v. Tunisia, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3.