CAT/C/52/D/402/2009 confirming that he wished to proceed with his complaint before the Committee. The Committee notes that the authenticity of the letter of 31 March 2011 has at no time been contested by the State party. The Committee therefore considers that the communication is admissible under article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention. 9.3 The Committee could not help but take note of the mysterious circumstances surrounding the complainant’s requests to withdraw his complaint, and the contradictory reasons given by the complainant and his counsel to explain those requests, followed by his request to resume the procedure. It notes the State party’s lack of cooperation regarding the submission of observations on the admissibility and merits of the case, despite the Committee’s five reminders of 22 January 2010, 11 April 2011, 17 November 2011, 6 December 2012 and 26 July 2013. The Committee reaffirms that, within the framework of the procedure for individual communications set out in article 22, the State party is called on to cooperate with the Committee in all good faith and must refrain from taking any action that might constitute a hindrance. The Committee wishes to remind the State party of its obligations under article 22, and regrets that its correspondence has so far been limited to requests for confirmation as to whether the complainant has withdrawn his complaint, and that no comments have been submitted on the admissibility or merits of the case, which has hitherto prevented the Committee from elucidating the violations allegedly suffered by the complainant. 9.4 Although the State party has contested the admissibility of the complaint, it has provided no relevant information or explanation. The Committee has found no impediment to the admissibility of the complaint, and therefore declares it admissible. Accordingly, it requested that the State party submit its observations on the merits of the communication no later than 31 December 2013. Lack of cooperation by the State party 10. On 6 October 2009, 22 January 2010, 11 April 2011, 17 November 2011, 6 December 2012, 26 July 2013 and 18 November 2013, the State party was asked to submit its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. In its note verbale of 22 October 2013, the State party announced that it would submit its observations once they had been finalized. Having found the complaint admissible on 18 November 2013, the Committee asked the State party to submit its comments no later than 31 December 2013. However, the State party’s observations on the merits were not received until 21 March 2014. The Committee regrets that the State party has provided no information of substance on the admissibility of the complaint, merely disputing admissibility in a note verbale on 1 December 2009, and that it has made no substantive comments on the merits of the complainant’s claims, saying only that he has been embroiled in legal problems. It recalls that the State party is obliged, under article 22 of the Convention, to submit to the Committee, in writing, explanations or statements clarifying the matter and to describe any remedies it may have taken. In the absence of a response from the State party, the Committee must give due weight to the complainant’s claims that are sufficiently substantiated.13 Consideration of the merits 11.1 The Committee has considered the complaint in light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. Since the State party has offered no substantive observations on the merits, due weight must be given to the complainant’s claims. 13 12 See communication No. 376/2009, Bendib v. Algeria, 8 November 2013. GE.14-05037