CAT/C/52/D/402/2009 of the complaint had been requested, an Algerian lawyer was engaged to defend the complainant’s interests before the Algerian courts. This lawyer was served a notification of the decision by the investigating judge,11 who rejected his petition without explanation. Under the circumstances, the complainant wished the Committee to examine his complaint against Algeria. Additional information from the State party 6.1 By note verbale of 31 March 2011, the State party said that it was surprised at how the complainant’s counsel was attempting to distort the information that had been communicated to him, in good faith, by the Committee secretariat regarding its contacts with the Permanent Mission of Algeria to the United Nations Office in Geneva. The State party categorically rejects those assertions, explaining that the Permanent Mission of Algeria had merely made contact with the Committee secretariat to verify information relayed to it on 17 December 2010 via the national electronic media, indicating that the complainant had withdrawn his complaint to the Committee on 15 December 2010. The State party notes that the Committee confirmed, on 17 December 2010, that it had received a request from the complainant to withdraw his complaint. 6.2 The State party adds that when it was informed about this letter, the Permanent Mission of Algeria requested a copy for the case file on this complaint and asked the usual questions about the next stage of the procedure. In reply, the Committee indicated that a copy would be forwarded after the usual consultations with the complainant’s counsel. The Committee also informed the Permanent Mission of Algeria that the withdrawal of the complaint would not take effect until after the Committee had taken a formal decision to strike the case from the roster during its May 2011 session. On 10 January 2011, the Committee informed the Permanent Mission of Algeria that the complainant’s counsel had not been informed of the request, and that it would therefore be necessary to consult him before confirming that the complaint had been withdrawn, and thus also before forwarding the complainant’s letter dated 15 December 2010. The State party notes that a copy of the letter has still not been sent. The State party insists that the Committee should verify the sequence of events, and that the complainant’s counsel should not question its good faith, or that of its diplomatic representatives, in this matter.12 6.3 By note verbale of 22 October 2013, the State party informed the Committee that its observations would be submitted as soon as they were complete. The Committee had planned to consider the complainant’s case in the absence of observations from the State party at its fifty-first session, which took place from 28 October to 22 November 2013. In view of the note verbale of 22 October 2013 from the State party, the Committee decided to consider, at its fifty-first session, only the admissibility of the communication. State party’s submission on the merits 7.1 On 21 March 2014, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the communication. It recalled that the complainant is an ex-serviceman who was demobilized on 16 October 1998 after a lengthy period of desertion. He had then found himself embroiled in legal proceedings and a warrant for his arrest for theft, forgery, using forged documents and fraud was issued by the El Harrach court on 13 February 1999. On 2 September 2000 he was sentenced in absentia to 2 years in prison for these offences. On 2 December 2000 another warrant for his arrest was issued for writing bad cheques. 11 12 10 The complainant does not identify the investigating judge, the court or the district involved. The complainant’s letter dated 15 December 2010, and duly verified, was forwarded to the State party on 11 April 2011. GE.14-05037