CAT/C/23/D/60/1996 page 14 9.6 The author has forwarded a letter from Professor Pounder in which the latter states his opinion on the report compiled by Professor Ghachem and two other experts. Professor Pounder notes that the State party has not provided the text of the report4 and states that, on the basis of the sentences which the State party has excerpted, he has not changed his opinion, namely that a road traffic accident could not explain the type of injuries which led to the death of Faisal Baraket. He reconfirmed that, in his opinion, the injury to the rectum could only have been received as a consequence of a foreign body being inserted into the anus. Furthermore, it is perfectly possible that such an injury could have been produced without causing a lesion to the anus itself. 9.7 The author has provided three other reports commissioned by Amnesty International from three professors of forensic science who evaluated the report prepared by the three experts and Professor Pounder’s report. They all concur with Professor Pounder’s opinion. The first, dated 6 October 1994, was drawn up by Professor Knight of the University of Wales, and states that: “I have studied the translation of the very short autopsy report from the Regional Hospital of Nabeul, Tunisia concerning an unnamed deceased person. I have also read the report of Professor Derrick Pounder and the extract from the Tunisian Government’s response. “I must begin by saying that I agree in every particular with Professor Pounder’s report and reject the government response, including the further opinion of three professors of legal medicine in Tunisia, whose comments are unacceptable. “This was a 25-year-old man and therefore in the absence of evidence to the contrary, would be expected at that age to be free of natural disease, especially in the rectum and sigmoid. “The cause of death given on the autopsy report (which must surely be only a brief summary, as no judicial autopsy report can possibly be this short) is useless and gives no true information at all about the underlying pathology leading to the death - it is merely a statement of the terminal mode of death, not the cause and is thus of no value whatsoever. “The autopsy reveals bruising of the soles of both feet, a perforation of the large intestine at the rectosigmoid junction, extensive bruising and oedema of the buttocks, various other bruises on the face, arms, head and legs. The only potentially fatal injury is perforation of the rectosigmoid junction. The only cause for this, in the absence of any serious stated disease such as cancer, severe colitis etc., is a perforating injury. This can only be caused, in the absence of gross abdominal injury, by an object being introduced into the rectum. This could occur without any damage to the anal margin, if a thin, pointed object, such as a thin rod was slid into the anus. Thus the objections of the three professors are unfounded, if they base their denial on the absence of anal damage. The bruising of the soles of the feet can only occur from beating in falanga. The bruising and oedema of the buttocks is typical of a beating in that area.