CAT/C/68/D/817/2017 6.13 On 8 July 2019, the complainant reiterated that the conditions of his detention were still the same, despite the interim measures requested by the Committee and the conclusions of the Organisation marocaine des droits humains, which recommended that he be placed in a prison closer to his family members and that he be allowed to have more contact with them. As previously indicated, telephone contact with his family is limited to two 5-minute calls per week, to his wife and his sister, whereas these restrictions are not imposed on other inmates. However, even this minimum is not respected and the complainant’s calls are monitored. The pressure on him remains intense, as he no longer receives his correspondence. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.2 In accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, the Committee must ascertain whether the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies, although this rule does not apply where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged 9 or is unlikely to bring effective relief to the alleged victim. The Committee notes that, according to the State party, the complainant was sentenced at first instance to 15 years’ imprisonment, after which the sentence was reduced on appeal to 12 years’ imprisonment. On 19 April 2014, the complainant’s application for review was denied by the Court of Cassation. The Committee further notes that the complainant made a submission to the General Delegation for Prison Administration and Reintegration to challenge the conditions of his detention, including his solitary confinement since his transfer to the Tiflet 2 prison in October 2016, whereas the State party claims that the complainant is being held under ordinary conditions of detention, without indicating whether any investigations have been conducted in this regard. Noting that the State party has not alleged that other domestic remedies are available to the complainant, the Committee therefore finds that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. 7.3 Not having found any other obstacles to admissibility, the Committee finds that the communication is admissible under article 22 of the Convention with respect to the alleged violation of articles 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16, and proceeds to consider it on the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 8.2 The Committee notes the complainant’s claims that: (a) the Committee’s decision on communication CAT/C/52/D/477/2011 has not been implemented, and the investigation opened in response to that decision did not meet the standards of due process; (b) the conditions of his detention in the Tiflet 2 prison since October 2016 have not improved, as he has continued to be subjected to solitary confinement for a prolonged and indefinite period, without being provided with the rationale behind it and without reassessment of his situation at regular intervals, in accordance with his procedural rights; and (c) his contacts with his family are restricted, he has limited access to a doctor in prison and he has not been allowed the opportunity to be examined by an independent doctor or to be visited by Belgian consular authorities. The Committee also notes that the complainant has asked to be placed in the group regime, but to no avail. 8.3 The Committee also notes the State party’s observations that: (a) the complainant enjoys all of his rights; (b) he is not in solitary confinement, but housed in a well-ventilated, 9 GE.20-00011 Asfari v. Morocco (CAT/C/59/D/606/2014), paras. 8.1, 8.2 and 12.2. 9