CAT/C/23/D/60/1996 page 16 “The stated cause of death is almost meaningless, as congestion of the lungs is always secondary to some other pathologic state. “Based on the available brief autopsy report it is much more likely that the cause of death was the described perforation of the bowel wall.” 9.10 With regard to the civil proceedings, the legal time limits for admissibility were largely exceeded by the time proceedings were brought. The Court of Appeal not only confirmed the admissibility of the case, but also increased the damages payable to the beneficiaries. The Chief of the State Litigation Department specifically stated before the Court of Appeal that the decision of the court of first instance in favour of the victim’s father had violated the law in that the alleged victim of a road traffic accident caused by an unidentified culprit must file, in writing and no more than one year from the date of the accident, a request to reach an amicable agreement with the Compensation Fund for the Victims of Road Accidents. In this case, the authorities were only apprised of the accident on 30 May 1995, or three years and five months after it occurred, thereby involving the statute of limitation. 9.11 The author states that Faisal Baraket’s younger brother is the only member of the family to have been paid his share of the compensation for the road traffic accident. Jamel Baraket, who is legally responsible for the family, has instructed the author to inform the Committee that this was done without his knowledge, his brother did not act spontaneously and it has not affected the family’s position. This remains unchanged, in spite of the fact that the sums awarded are sizeable in proportion to the standard of living in Tunisia and the family’s very modest material situation. The family has always refused to have any dealings with the lawyer Mr. Mohamed Ahmed El Marhoul, particularly with regard to his persistent appeals that they should come to his office and collect the money. At the request of the President of the Court of First Instance, Mr. Ahmed El Marhoul should long ago have filed a warrant authorizing remittance of the sums in question to the Treasury. 9.12 The author reaffirms that the victim’s parents never brought criminal proceedings because they knew for a fact that their son did not die in a road traffic accident. They also knew that the State party was acting in bad faith when it reopened and closed the same case three times in less than three years, entrusting the same people with the investigation on each occasion. Further observations by the State party 10.1 Concerning the medical opinions advanced by Dr. Knight, Dr. Thomsen and Dr. Fournier, the State party affirms that these are not medical evaluations but comments prepared on the basis of an alternative report, which was in turn drawn up on the basis of Dr. Sassi’s initial report, and which purely and simply endorsed the conclusions reached by Dr. Pounder. 10.2 The State party considers it unacceptable that the author should accuse the Tunisian judicial authorities of distorting the procedure by questioning witnesses and not suspects. A suspect becomes a suspect only when there is credible and consistent evidence and proof which may be revealed by witnesses, inter alia. From the standpoint of criminal procedure,