9.3 The State party claims to have reopened the Baraket case following the transmission of communication No. 14/1994, and to have summoned for questioning the witnesses named by the author. In fact, the police officers concerned have never been questioned or involved with the inquiry in any way, despite the fact that the author has indicated their name and rank. 9.4 With regard to the witness who the State party says has been bribed, the author claims that the witness is a wealthy businessman and asks where he could have found the money to offer a bribe, since he himself has no money to give. This same witness informed the author that, when he was questioned after the reopening of the case, he was detained for over a week and the police officers involved in the Faisal Baraket case were present during his detention. This is the witness whose wife was arrested in 1996.c Finally, the general superintendent at Nabeul Hospital is unknown to the author and has never been named by him as a "witness". 9.5 The author rejects the State party's contention that there is no connection between the imprisonment of the wife of one of the witnesses and the case under consideration. The State party has not explained to the Committee why proceedings were instituted against the wife in question. It has also failed to explain why she has been transferred to a prison far away from her family, and why her counsel is prohibited from talking to her without the presence of witnesses. 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 reportd 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. c See above, para. 6.1. d The full text of the report was subsequently transmitted to the Committee. 71