CAT/C/23/D/60/1996 page 8 Proceedings before the Committee 4.1 In its decision of 5 May 1995, the Committee declared the author’s communication No. 14/1994 inadmissible on the ground that he had not submitted sufficient evidence to establish his right to act on behalf of the alleged victim.2 However, the decision stipulated that the Committee could receive and consider a new communication submitted by any person whose right to act had been duly established. 4.2 On 6 November 1997, the author submitted a new communication, which the Committee transmitted to the State party on 23 January 1997 under No. 60/1996 in which the Committee requested the State party to ensure that the author and his family, the alleged victim’s family and the witnesses and their families were not subjected to any ill-treatment. Observations of the State party concerning admissibility 5.1 The State party maintains that the communication contains comments that are insulting and injurious to the Tunisian State and its institutions and are obviously politically motivated, thereby constituting an abuse of the right to submit such communications. It further indicates that the domestic remedies have not been exhausted. 5.2 The State party objects to the Committee’s request to take measures to protect Mr. Jamel Baraket and his family, considering that request as implying that the Committee has already taken a decision on the question of the admissibility of the communication. 5.3 The State party expresses doubts concerning the authenticity of the power of attorney granted to the author by Jamel Baraket, the alleged victim’s brother. In that regard, it points out that, in his first communication, the author submitted a power of attorney from the alleged victim’s father although the latter had made an authenticated statement to the Government in which he denied having granted such power of attorney. 5.4 The State party submits that the author’s undeclared aims are political and that he belongs to an extremist movement, on account of which he was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment in Tunisia. 5.5 Concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State party disputes the author’s claim that remedies either do not exist or are ineffective. According to the Penal Code, the statutory time limit for criminal prosecution is 10 years and the public right of action is therefore not extinguished. Moreover, that time limit can also be suspended or reset whenever a new investigation is opened. The Office of the Public Prosecutor had, on its own initiative, twice reopened a judicial investigation and could order a reopening of the investigation at any time whenever it was notified of new evidence or developments that might help to discover the truth. 5.6 The State party indicates that the alleged victim’s father brought a civil action for damages in connection with his son’s death in a hit-and-run accident. The claimant in that case was represented by Mr. Mohamed Ahmed El Marhoul. In a judgement dated 9 October 1995, the Court of First Instance at Grombalia ordered the Chief of the State Litigation Department (as the legal representative of the Compensation Fund for the Victims of Traffic Accidents) to pay a