CAT/C/23/D/60/1996 page 12 superintendent at Nabeul Hospital stated that he had never gone to the police station to help the victim. The examining magistrate therefore decided that there were no grounds for pursuing the matter. 8.9 Faisal Baraket’s relatives have never sued for damages in civil proceedings. For this reason, they have never contested the two decisions to close the case. Furthermore, article 5 of the Tunisian Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that the statutory time limit for criminal prosecution is 10 years from the date of commission of the offence charged. This period may be suspended or reset whenever a new inquiry is opened. Relatives are entitled to submit new material of any kind in order to persuade the Public Prosecutor’s Office to reopen the judicial investigation. 8.10 The State party indicates that on 16 November and 10 December 1991 Faisal Baraket’s parents filed separate applications with the Grombalia Public Prosecutor’s Office challenging the arbitrary detention and disappearance of their son Jamel Baraket. Both of these applications were successful. Given they were able to take such steps without incurring the reprisals predicted by the author, by the same token they were entirely at liberty to raise the matter of Faisal Baraket had they been convinced that he had been tortured to death. But no complaint of torture has ever been filed with the Tunisian courts. The criminal investigations to discover the truth in this matter have been initiated by the Public Prosecutor’s Office. 8.11 The State party reports that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has requested the Ministry of Public Health to commission a second report from Professor Ghachem on the conclusions of his initial report. This second report, a copy of which has been sent to the Committee, states that: “While it is true that the description of the lesions referred to in the autopsy report is imprecise and their origin is not explained, it is nevertheless the case that the conclusions reached by Professor Pounder are not based on objective forensic evidence. This is because the forced introduction of a foreign body into the anus leaves obvious marks in this area [...]. The autopsy report makes no mention of any traumatic lesions to the anus. [...] Nevertheless, I am also of the opinion that an exchange of views and a discussion with Professor D.J. Pounder and Professor S. Sassi regarding this case would be very useful”. 8.12 The State party has also provided a French translation of an excerpt from a sworn deposition made by Dr. Sassi before the examining magistrate. The relevant passage reads: “It has been ascertained that there was a rupture of the large intestine in the area of the pelvis and the infiltration of waste products from the large intestine into the body caused a blood infection which in turn led to insufficiency of the respiratory apparatus, the direct cause of death. Dr. Sassi explained to us that the rupture of the large intestine was due to an acute traumatism which could have resulted from the collision between the victim and a solid body. This could have been the result of a road traffic accident involving a motor vehicle”. 8.13 Regarding the question of civil proceedings, the State party emphasizes that Faisal Baraket’s father did indeed bring a civil action for damages in connection with his son’s death in a road traffic accident; from March 1995 he was represented in this action by Mr. Ahmed El Marhoul. The judgement in this case became final and enforceable following an appeal by the parties. Counsel proceeded to enforce the judgement. The author has provided no