CAT/C/52/D/402/2009 State party’s observations on admissibility 4. On 1 December 2009, the State party contested the admissibility of the complaint, on the grounds that it did not meet the conditions laid down by the Committee’s rules of procedure concerning the procedure for complaints. The State party gave no additional explanation as to the basis on which it was contesting the admissibility of the complaint. Additional information from the complainant 5.1 On 3 March 2010, the complainant observed that the State party had not substantiated its request that the Committee should find the complaint inadmissible. He therefore asked the Committee not to grant the State party’s request and to pronounce on the admissibility of the communication as well as on its merits. 5.2 On 15 December 2010, the complainant informed the Committee that he wished to withdraw his complaint against the State party. 5.3 On 4 March 2011, the complainant’s counsel noted that on the same day that the complainant informed him of his wish to withdraw his complaint, which was 15 December 2010, a representative of the Permanent Mission of Algeria to the United Nations Office in Geneva contacted the Committee secretariat for confirmation that the complainant had done so. Counsel indicated that the complainant had several reasons for withdrawing his complaint. Firstly, he had been pressured by members of his family who did not wish him to take action against the State party. The withdrawal of the request was also a response to the persistent demand of his father, who said it was an affront to the dignity of his country. Secondly, he had been pressured and threatened by Algerian opposition organizations and movements that had hacked into and were monitoring his electronic mail and his website.8 Thirdly, the complainant had been the target of death threats but had not been able to determine who they had come from. On 8 November and 8 December 2010, the complainant informed the Toulouse police that he had received death threats by electronic mail via his website. 5.4 Although he expressed the desire to withdraw his complaint to the Committee, he also expressed a wish to proceed with his criminal complaint against the former Minister of State, Bouguerra Soltani, whom he accuses of having tortured him, and against whom he lodged a criminal complaint before the Swiss courts in October 2009, in application of the principle of universal jurisdiction.9 The Minister managed to flee before the police of the canton of Fribourg could arrange for a confrontation with the complainant. 5.5 Counsel informed the Committee that he had received an unsigned letter from the complainant, dated 21 October 2010, in which he mentioned his wish to withdraw his complaint because negotiations with the Algerian authorities had brought about the restoration of his moral and material rights, and the complaint was thus no longer necessary. Since it was not signed, counsel contacted the complainant, who denied having sent the letter. 5.6 On 31 March 2011, counsel informed the Committee that the complainant had decided to proceed with his case before it.10 The complainant explained that his initial request to withdraw the complaint had arisen from problems with the Algerian judiciary, which had required proof of his wish to withdraw his complaint to the Committee before it could investigate a complaint against those involved in torturing him. After the withdrawal 8 9 10 GE.14-05037 www.anouarmalek.com. The complainant had filed the complaint in Switzerland, because the Minister was then on Swiss territory. Counsel provided a letter dated 8 March 2011 and signed by the complainant to this effect. 9