CAT/C/68/D/817/2017 3.2 In order to avoid irreparable damage resulting from the violation of the Convention, the complainant requests the adoption of interim measures of protection in the form of either release or prompt return to regular conditions of detention and, in this context, requests that his status as a victim and his particular family situation be taken into account. 3.3 The complainant requests the Committee to urge the State party to: (a) put an immediate end to the isolation imposed on him; (b) return him to regular conditions of detention so that he can have contact with other inmates, in particular during the daily recreation period; (c) allow him to be visited, if necessary, by members of the Committee against Torture; and (d) allow him to consult doctors outside the prison facilities. He also requests the Committee to urge the State party to allow him longer visits with his family, lasting at least one and a half hours, when they travel from abroad to see him; to be visited by the Consul of Belgium, his Belgian counsel, the Chair of his support committee and members of the Observatoire Marocain des Prisons (Moroccan Observatory of Prisons); and to allow him to receive the additional food brought to him by his family, as well as personal care items. 3.4 The complainant emphasizes that, while interim measures are usually intended to prevent an act of torture from being committed, that purpose suggests that they should also address cases of documented, ongoing treatment of a cruel, inhuman and degrading nature, given that such cases also entail a clear risk of irreparable damage. 3.5 The complainant adds that the Moroccan authorities have not adequately followed up on the decision taken by the Committee on his communication CAT/C/52/D/477/2011. Indeed, they do not treat the complainant as a victim of a violation of the Convention; on the contrary, they seem to be intent on destroying him. As a reminder, the complainant has lost 18 kg since his transfer to the Tiflet 2 prison. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In a note verbale dated 9 June 2017, the State party submitted its observations on the circumstances of the complainant’s detention. 4.2 The State party recalls that the complainant, by reason of his involvement in a terrorism case, was handed over to the Moroccan authorities under an extradition measure on 14 December 2010 and was taken into police custody on the same day. In this context, although the victim’s family, who were informed that he had been taken into police custody, and the victim were entitled to seek legal and judicial assistance, they did not take any steps in that regard. 4.3 On 24 December 2010, the complainant was brought before the Crown Prosecutor General of the Rabat Court of Appeal, who did not note any signs of torture or ill-treatment and ordered that the complainant be brought, on the same day, before the investigating judge in charge of terrorism cases. Before the investigating judge, at his first hearing, the complainant stated that he had belonged to the Mujahidin Movement of Morocco since 1992 and requested legal assistance. 4.4 At that first hearing, the complainant did not raise any allegations of torture or illtreatment and the judge did not note any signs or marks in that connection. 4.5 On 18 January 2011, assisted by his counsel, the complainant appeared for the second time before the investigating judge at a detailed hearing, and once again did not raise any allegations of torture or ill-treatment. His counsel did not raise any such allegations either, and the investigating judge did not observe any marks that could be likened to signs of torture or ill-treatment. In May 2011, almost six months after his first hearing with the investigating judge, the complainant filed a complaint alleging that he had been tortured. An investigation was carried out by the Crown Prosecutor General of the Rabat Court of Appeal, but as no evidence of the veracity of the allegations could be found, the complaint was dismissed. The results of a medical examination ordered by the Crown Prosecutor General and carried out by four doctors specializing in forensic medicine; neurology; trauma and orthopaedic surgery; and otorhinolaryngology led to the conclusion that the complainant’s allegations were false, upon which the case was closed. 4 GE.20-00011