CAT/C/39/D/269/2005 page 7 Faced with the complainant’s failure to respond, the Tunis prosecutor’s office decided on 29 May 2003 to bring the alleged victim face-to-face with the three police officers. It assigned the office of the chief of the security service for the Tunis district to summon the complainant and ask him for contact details of the witnesses he cited in his complaint. That request was not followed up because the complainant was not at the address given in the initial complaint. The Deputy Public Prosecutor therefore decided on 12 June 2003 to file the case without further action, for lack of evidence. 4.2 The State party points out that the allegations made by the complainant relate to acts that qualify as crimes under Tunisian law, action on which is time-barred only after 10 years. The complainant can, therefore, still lodge an appeal. The State party stresses that the complainant has offered no serious reason for his failure to take action despite the legal and practical opportunities open to him to bring his case before the national courts. He can contest the Public Prosecutor’s decision to file the case without further action, having the inquiry brought before an examining magistrate, or he can summon the defendants directly before the Criminal Division of the High Court under article 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He can combine a civil application for compensation with the criminal proceedings, or await a conviction, then bring a separate civil suit for damages before the civil courts alone. The complainant can also file an administrative appeal, since public officials who commit serious misconduct render the State liable along with themselves. An appeal of this kind is still possible, since the limitation period for compensation appeals is 15 years. The State party asserts that domestic remedies are effective but the complainant has not made intelligent use of them. It cites numerous examples to show that appeals to the Tunisian justice system in similar cases have been not only possible, but effective. 4.3 Because of the complainant’s political motivations and the slanderous content of the communication, the State party considers that he has abused the right to submit communications under article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention. It points out that the complainant is a founder member of two groups that are not legally recognized in Tunisia, CNLT and ATLT, which continue to operate outside the law and are constantly adopting disparaging positions aimed at discrediting the country’s institutions. It notes that the complainant has levelled serious defamatory accusations against the Tunisian judicial authorities that are in actual fact not supported by any evidence. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 21 November 2005 the complainant reaffirmed that he had made use of the domestic remedies provided under Tunisian law, despite the fact that they were ineffective. He had done more than should be expected to have the incidents investigated and judged at the national level, since he had taken all the steps that should have led to a serious inquiry. The obligation to undertake an investigation lay with the State even in the absence of any formal procedural action on the part of the victim. In any case, he had gone in person to the offices of the competent authorities to submit his complaint after trying to complain twice before. No notification, summons or instruction had been sent to him, and no information on the status of his case had been communicated to him. He therefore considered that he had not been remiss as far as following up on his complaint was concerned. The State party bore sole responsibility for