CAT/C/52/D/372/2009 4.2 Upon arrival at the Moroccan port of Dakhla, the surviving undocumented migrants underwent a medical examination; 10 of them were subsequently hospitalized because of their deteriorating health. The two bodies were transported to the morgue so that a sample of their DNA could be taken and their identity ascertained. The rest of the group was transported to the centre for undocumented migrants after their statements had been taken. The wilaya (governorate) of the Oued Ed-Dahab-Lagouira region then ensured that all persons detained at the centre received daily meals, clothes and blankets as well as medical follow-up. 4.3 The State party notes that on 8 September 2008,3 the Wali (governor) decided to expel these undocumented migrants via the Morocco-Mauritania border crossing, and that the decision was carried out on 10 September 2008, in accordance with the legislation in force. In this connection, the State party notes that the provisions of its national legislation concerning the entry and stay of aliens in Morocco and irregular migration guarantees the right of aliens to access to a lawyer, an interpreter and a doctor, to communicate with their consulate or a person of their choice and to appeal a decision to escort them to the border within 48 hours of being notified of the decision. The State party concludes by stating that neither the complainant nor any other member of the group followed the judicial appeal procedures mentioned above during their detention at the centre.4 Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5. The complainant observes that the State party confirms the reported facts and that he was therefore unable at the time of his expulsion to make use of the legal remedies indicated by the State party. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 Regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee takes note of the information submitted by the State party on remedies provided for in its legislation allowing individuals to contest decisions to escort them to the border within 48 hours of being notified of the decision. The Committee observes, however, that the State party does not indicate that it had effectively informed the complainant of the remedies available to appeal the expulsion decision. Nevertheless, the Committee points out that, in the present case, the complainant’s claim does not focus on the expulsion decision but on the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted by the State party authorities during his expulsion to Mauritania. The Committee also notes that the State party does not provide information on the relevant, suitable and effective remedies available in practice. In particular, no information is provided by the State party on the remedies accessible to the complainant to obtain reparations for the alleged violation following his expulsion, when he 3 4 4 The dates provided by the State party concerning the expulsion decision and its execution do not seem to correspond to those provided by the complainant. The State party does not indicate that the complainant was informed of the remedies available. GE.14-07821