CAT/C/57/D/598/2014 3.3 The complainant further claims a violation of article 10 of the Convention, on the ground that the public officials in the Centre and on the boat where he was detained lacked training regarding prohibition of torture. 3.4 In addition, the complainant claims that the State party’s failure to review its interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices, as well as its arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, as provided in article 11 of the Convention, led to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment in his case. He explains that the State party has failed to decriminalize illegal immigration in its penal code and instead has provided for the possibility of detaining migrants for up to 180 days. The country also lacks a unified law on the right to asylum, and its bilateral repatriation agreements with Libya, Tunisia and Egypt lead to violations of the non-refoulement principle. 3.5 Finally, the complainant alleges violation of his rights under article 16 of the Convention, owing to the conditions of detention in the Centre and on the Moby Lines ship. 3.6 The complainant asks the Committee to find a violation by Italy of article 1, read in conjunction with articles 2 (2), 10, 11 and 16, of the Convention, and recommend that the State party set forth orders or decrees aimed at assessing the facts as submitted by him and hold liable the entities and individuals responsible for the claimed breaches and violations; and that it assess adequate compensation, other means of support or damages in the complainant’s favour for the suffering caused to him and for the unlawful denial and deprivation of his freedom. State party’s observations 4.1 On 4 December 2014, the State party informed the Committee that, following a thorough investigation by the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Justice, the complainant’s presence in Lampedusa could not be confirmed. The State party explains that, since a massive inflow of migrants in 2011, all migrants housed in Lampedusa are systematically registered and all services, including legal aid, are available to them. All people who landed on Lampedusa during the period concerned were identified by police officers through individual interviews in the presence of an interpreter/cultural mediator. Expulsion measures were issued in accordance with the law, in the form of reasoned decisions, duly translated into Arabic and communicated to the person concerned. 4.2 The State party adds that, at the time referred to by the complainant, the Lampedusa centre was fully functioning, comprising 1 director, 2 vice-directors, 99 social service providers, 3 social assistants, 8 interpreters and cultural mediators, 8 other employees and 3 sectorial managers, who were supervising the facility 24 hours a day. On the three boats made available for migrants in Palermo, there were no unaccompanied minors, asylum seekers or vulnerable persons. 4.3 Finally, the State party submits that all the persons against whom expulsion orders were issued were entitled to lodge a complaint before the Justice of the Peace of Agrigento. As verified with the Justice of the Peace of Agrigento, no appeal has been submitted by the complainant. 4.4 The State party affirms that there was no breach of the provisions of the Convention in the present case. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 15 April 2015, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations, in which he argued that the State party was obliged to provide evidence of the registration of migrants and that it had prevented access to such records. In fact, access by GE.16-09656 3