CAT/C/41/D/323/2007 page 7 exceeded its international obligations relating to assistance and rescue at sea, which were limited to rescuing the boat and bringing it to a safe port without any concomitant responsibility for the treatment, care and repatriation of the passengers who had been on board. 6.2 The State party informs the Committee that, in its decision of 12 December 2007, the National High Court rejected the application for administrative litigation submitted by CEAR under the Special Act for the protection of fundamental human rights. The National High Court held that the incidents in question constituted political acts on the part of the Government, namely acts of humanitarian assistance performed pursuant to international norms, and that they were exempt from judicial prosecution under Act No. 29/1988 of 13 July 1988, regulating the remedy of administrative litigation. The High Court also held that the measures agreed in respect of the persons offloaded at Nouadhibou were taken by the Mauritanian authorities pursuant to the laws of that country, and that it was thus up to the Mauritanian courts to determine whether the irregularities alleged by CEAR had actually occurred. The State party notes that the aforementioned decision is likely to be reviewed and that it confirms that domestic procedures relating to this matter do exist, and it argues that the complainant is acting inappropriately and in abuse of the right to submit complaints. 6.3 According to the final report of Médecins du Monde issued on 29 July 2007, 6 of the 23 alleged victims were taken to Melilla, Spain; 1 was granted refugee status by Spain while the remaining 5 were permitted to take up residency in Spain on humanitarian grounds. 6.4 Lastly, the State party reiterates its previous arguments relating to the conditions of detention of the alleged victims and contests the complainant’s description of events. The complainant’s comments 7.1 On 18 February 2008, the complainant reiterated his previous arguments on admissibility and the merits of the complaint. 7.2 The complainant maintains that the action taken by the State party was not motivated by humanitarian considerations but by an international obligation, and that it had assumed its responsibility for the alleged victims at every phase of its action. 7.3 According to information contained in press articles submitted by the complainant, in July 2007, 13 of the 23 alleged victims were repatriated, 4 were sent to Portugal and 5 were taken to the short-stay residential facility for immigrants (CETI) in Melilla, Spain. The complainant invites the Committee to visit this facility to take statements from the five detainees. He claims that as a volunteer social activist he lacks the necessary resources and permits to travel to Melilla and take part in this investigation. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 8.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 8.2 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the complainant lacks competence to represent the alleged victims because the incidents forming the substance of the complaint occurred outside Spanish territory. Nevertheless, the Committee recalls its