CAT/C/61/D/654/2015 than that prescribed by article 219, which provides for aggravating circumstances that are not taken into account by article 101. Consequently, by virtue of their status as officials, the perpetrators of the acts of torture in the present case are not liable to the harsh penalties prescribed by article 219 which would be applicable if they were not public officials. 5.10 In addition, the judges implicitly rejected another legal definition in article 250 of the Criminal Code, which stipulates that: “Any person who unlawfully apprehends, arrests, detains or illegally confines another person shall be liable to a penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment and a fine of 20,000 dinars.” Rached Jaïdane was arrested without a warrant and held in incommunicado detention in the Ministry of the Interior for several weeks, in violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5.11 Invocation of the definition of violence is fraught with consequences inasmuch as the offence of violence is statute-barred after three years. Even if it is redefined as a serious crime by taking into account aggravating circumstances, such acts are statute-barred after 10 years. 5.12 The complainant adds that the application of time limits for prosecution also contravenes article 2 of the Convention which, according to the Committee’s interpretation, 16 prohibits States from applying statutes of limitations to prevent the prosecution of crimes of torture. In the present case, although the non-applicability of statutory limitation to the crime of torture is enshrined in the new Tunisian Constitution, the State party has evaded its obligations under article 2 of the Convention by adopting a different definition of the acts in order to declare the offence statute-barred. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, 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. 6.2 The Committee notes that the State party has challenged the admissibility of the complaint, arguing that the complainant has not exhausted domestic remedies. In this regard, the Committee notes that: the complainant filed a criminal complaint, which was registered by the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Court of First Instance on 3 June 2011; that the trial began in April 2012; that a decision was handed down on 8 April 2015, three years later, declaring that the acts were statute-barred and not liable to prosecution (with the exception of the charges filed against former President Ben Ali); and that the complainant has appealed the decision, but the case has not been heard to date, with the next hearing scheduled for 20 October 2017. The Committee considers that the insurmountable procedural constraint imposed on the complainant by the inaction of the competent authorities has rendered the opening of proceedings conducive to a useful remedy highly unlikely. 17 In the absence of relevant information from the State party, the Committee concludes that the domestic proceedings have exceeded reasonable time limits. Accordingly, the Committee is not deterred from considering this communication by article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 6.3 As the Committee considers that there is no other obstacle to admissibility, it declares the complaint admissible and proceeds to its consideration of the merits. 16 17 12 The complainant refers to general comment No. 3 (2012) on the implementation of article 14 by States parties, para. 40. See communication No. 291/2006, Ali v. Tunisia, decision adopted on 21 November 2008, para. 15.2. GE.17-16785