CAT/C/18/D/46/1996 page 7 5.4 According to counsel, the refusal deprives the complainants of an effective and useful remedy. Counsel argues that the reasons on which the magistrate based his decision (the harmful media effects) (“le retentissement médiatique néfaste”), is totally unacceptable and shows that he recognizes that the reconstruction would reveal a disturbing reality. It is stated that the magistrate also objected to the costs such a reconstruction would entail. 5.5 Counsel argues that with this decision, the magistrate has violated his international obligations under articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Convention against Torture. Counsel contends therefore that the procedure can no longer be seen as likely to bring effective relief, and that the communication should thus be declared admissible. 6.1 In a further submission, counsel states that the Court of Appeal of Papeete has confirmed the decision by the investigating magistrate of 18 October 1996 rejecting the complainants' request for a reconstruction. Counsel states that the complainants have requested a judicial review (cassation) of this decision and submits that all domestic remedies will thus have been exhausted when the Committee takes up the communication. Counsel adds that it is clear that the procedure initiated under article 85 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not give effective relief. According to counsel this is shown also by the fact that there has been as yet no arraignment (mise en examen) of the accused, although the complainants have recognized their aggressors from the pictures furnished by the investigating magistrate. 6.2 Counsel alleges that the reconstruction in situ was refused because it would reveal a violation of article 16 of the Convention. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 7.1 Before considering any claim in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 7.2 Article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention precludes the Committee from considering any communication unless it has ascertained that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted. The Committee notes that the ill-treatment inflicted on the complainants is currently the subject of a judicial review in Papeete. The Committee finds that the information before it does not suggest that the recourse procedure is being unreasonably delayed or that it is unlikely to bring the complainants effective relief. It observes, therefore, that the conditions laid down in article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention have not been met. 8. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible;