CAT/C/61/D/654/2015 2011, allegedly to promote the elimination of the phenomenon of torture. The resulting definition of torture is even further removed than the previous one from the international definition contained in the Convention against Torture. 9 Acts of torture committed prior to the introduction of article 101 bis into the Criminal Code in 1999 should not, in theory, be prosecuted owing to the applicability of the principle of non-retroactivity of criminal law. However, article 148 (9) of the new Constitution stipulates that, for crimes under the transitional justice system, including torture, “the invocation of the non-retroactivity of laws, the existence of a prior amnesty, the authority of res judicata, or the applicability of the statute of limitations to the crime or punishment is considered inadmissible”. Measures to ensure that acts of torture are offences under criminal law and are punishable by appropriate penalties (article 4) 3.8 According to the complainant, the judge should have characterized the acts as violations of articles 250 and 251 of the Criminal Code on account of the complainant’s arbitrary detention. Article 250 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.” Article 251 specifies the following aggravating circumstances: “The penalty shall be 20 years’ imprisonment and a fine of 20,000 dinars: (a) if the apprehension, arrest, detention or illegal confinement is accompanied by violence or threats. [...] The penalty is life imprisonment if the apprehension, arrest, detention or illegal confinement lasts for more than one month or results in physical disability or illness; if the operation is intended either to prepare or facilitate the commission of a serious crime or other major offence, or to enable the perpetrators and accomplices of a serious crime or other major offence to flee or escape punishment; or if the purpose is to secure compliance with an order or condition, or to damage the physical integrity of the victim or victims.” According to the complainant, these legal definitions are not entirely consistent with article 4 of the Convention. As the acts are defined as a “major offence”, the defendants are liable to a maximum of 5 years’ imprisonment, which appears to be quite a lenient penalty in the light of the seriousness of the acts. Systematic review of rules (article 11) 3.9 According to the complainant, the Tunisian authorities manifestly failed to conduct the necessary oversight of his treatment, given his critical condition following the interrogation. In addition, there were several procedural irregularities, including: incommunicado detention in the Ministry of the Interior for 37 days; custody exceeding the maximum period; failure to inform his family and denial of access to medical care; lack of legal assistance, since Tunisian law fails to guarantee that right to persons held in police custody; and detention in an unrecognized place of deprivation of liberty. 3.10 Furthermore, during his 13 years of incarceration, he was repeatedly denied the right to receive visits from his family. He was detained on 4 September 1993 but only received his first family visit in December of that year. He was subsequently denied the right to visits whenever he was placed in solitary confinement. His right to be examined by a doctor in prison was not respected. The doctors whom he saw on rare occasions merely verified that he had suffered no fracture after two beating sessions or visited him on several occasions to persuade him to end his hunger strikes. As they never treated him, Rached Jaïdane had to be hospitalized several times during his incarceration, sometimes in a critical condition. A prompt and impartial investigation (article 12) 3.11 The complainant also invokes article 12, stressing that the judicial authorities were informed of the acts of torture inflicted on Rached Jaïdane at the end of his period of custody on 4 September 1993, when he appeared before a first investigating judge after 37 days of arbitrary detention and torture at the Ministry of the Interior. Rached Jaïdane reiterated his complaints when he appeared before the second investigating judge at the end 9 8 See, in this regard, the Committee’s concluding observations concerning the third periodic report of Tunisia (CAT/C/TUN/CO/3). GE.17-16785