CAT/C/68/D/817/2017 displeased and accused the complainant of threatening him. Since then, this warden has given him a hard time: he insists that the complainant speak only in French, Arabic, Spanish or Riffian when using the telephone, so that the guard can monitor and understand him; he requires the complainant to go to the yard to cut his hair; prison staff come to his cell unexpectedly every day to tell him that the time to go out has arrived; prison staff regularly enter the shower block to watch him; and the complainant is no longer entitled to hot water, whereas it used to be available to him upon request every day. The complainant is very fearful of pressure and was subjected to serious pressure when he arrived at Tiflet 2 prison. The situation is unchanged. After a freezing winter, the complainant now faces, in these dire conditions, a scorching summer. He has been in detention for 10 years. 6.6 The complainant challenges most of the State party’s observations. First, the State party includes among the “facts” some elements that are not the subject of the present proceedings, namely everything concerning the criminal proceedings that led to the complainant’s conviction. Second, the State party takes no account whatsoever of the Committee’s findings in communication CAT/C/52/D/477/2011, namely the violation of articles 2, 11, 12, 13 and 15 of the Convention. Given that a violation of article 15 of the Convention has been found, the only suitable and effective remedy is the reopening of the proceedings. However, the Court of Cassation dismissed the complainant’s application in 2017. This decision was not duly notified, which unfortunately reflects a lack of will on the part of the State party to comply in practice with directly applicable international law, and this, in turn, has a negative impact on the observance of human rights in Morocco. 6.7 With regard to the conditions of detention, the complainant notes that the State party does not deny his allegations. It merely asserts that he is not in solitary confinement and that he enjoys all of his rights, thus insinuating that it would be discriminatory to treat him differently. 6.8 Referring to the details covered in his initial complaint, the complainant recalls, in response to the State party’s claims, that his counsel did not receive any response to their last letter. He further stresses that the State party has never allowed an external doctor or the Belgian consular authorities to visit him, despite his repeated requests. Under these circumstances, the complainant’s allegations should be held to have been substantiated and a violation of articles 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16 of the Convention should thus be recognized. 6.9 The complainant is also concerned about the claim, in the State party’s observations, that he has always refused to comply with the rules in force and has constantly encouraged other inmates to break the law. He stresses that he has never been summoned to appear before the disciplinary board, yet it is within that framework that the problems referred to by the State party should in principle be addressed, in a manner that respects his right to a defence. This is the first time, apart from the letter of 7 November 2017, that the complainant has been accused of this type of behaviour. The prison administration had never tried to justify its actions by insinuating that the treatment suffered by the complainant was his fault. 6.10 As for the rebuttal of deficiencies in the provision of medical care, the State party still refuses to allow the complainant access to an external, independent, non-Moroccan doctor. The complainant’s counsel still do not know the legal or regulatory basis for such a refusal. 6.11 The complainant also states that there have been no investigations into the source of the many signs of beatings found on his body. He recalls that the actions reported in this complaint are unfortunately not isolated.8 6.12 Accordingly, the complainant requests the Committee to find a violation of articles 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16 of the Convention and requests that the State party immediately release him and provide him with full, adequate and fair compensation for all of the Convention violations found to have occurred and for the consequences thereof. 8 8 See CCPR/C/MAR/CO/6. GE.20-00011