CAT/C/31/D/188/2001 Page 15 performing an act which has the effect of interrupting the limitation. The State party also mentions the scope for the complainant to lodge an appeal for compensation for any serious injury caused by a public official in the performance of his duties,4 noting that the limitation period stands at 15 years.5 The State party points out that the Tunisian courts have always acted systematically to remedy deficiencies in the law on acts of torture (see paragraph 4.10). 8.4 As for the allegations of failure to respect guarantees relating to judicial procedure, the State party regards them as unfounded. According to the State party, the authorities did not prevent the complainant from lodging a complaint before the courts - on the contrary, he opted not to make use of domestic remedies. As for the “obligation” of judges to ignore statements made as a result of torture, the State party cites article 15 of the Convention against Torture, and considers that it is incumbent on the accused to provide the judge with at least basic evidence that his statement has been made in an unlawful manner. In this way he would confirm the truth of his allegations by presenting a medical report or a certificate proving that he had lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor’s office, or even by displaying obvious traces of torture or ill-treatment to the court. However, the State party points out that the complainant did not deem it necessary to lodge a complaint either during his detention or during his trial; this formed part of a strategy adopted by the “ENNAHDA” illegal extremist movement in order to discredit Tunisian institutions by systematically alleging acts of torture and ill-treatment but not making use of available remedies. 8.5 Concerning the allegations relating to his confession, the State party considers baseless the complainant’s claim that he was found guilty on the sole basis of his confession. It points out that, under the last paragraph of article 69 and article 152 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a confession on the part of the accused cannot relieve the judge of the obligation to seek other evidence, while confessions, like all items of evidence, are a matter for the independent appreciation of the judge. On that basis, it is a constant of Tunisian case law that an accused cannot be found guilty on the sole basis of a confession.6 In the case in question, the basis for the court’s decision, in addition to the confessions made by the complainant throughout the judicial proceedings, was testimony by his accomplices. The State party also rejects as baseless the complainant’s allegation that he had signed a transcript without being aware of its content, pointing out that the law requires that the transcript be read to the accused before signature, and that this was done. Concerning the complainant’s allegations that the proceedings in his case were both summary and protracted, the State party indicates that the length of the proceedings is dictated by respect for the right to a defence. In addition, with the aim of preventing counsel or even the prosecution from engaging in delaying tactics and seeking the postponement of hearings, the State party points out that rulings by judges are always accompanied by a statement of grounds, as are rulings postponing hearings relating to the criminal proceedings against the complainant. 4 Under the Administrative Court Act of 1 June 1972, the State may be held responsible even when it is performing a sovereign act if its representatives, agents or officials have caused material or moral injury to a third person. The injured party may demand from the State compensation for the injury suffered, under article 84 of the Code of Obligations and Contracts, without prejudice to the direct liability of its officials vis -à-vis the injured parties. 5 6 Administrative Court - judgement No. 1013 of 10 May 1003 and judgement No. 21816 of 24 January 1997. Judgement No. 4692 of 30 July 1996, published in the Revue de Jurisprudence et Législation (R.J.:L); judgement No. 8616 of 25 February 1974 R .J .L . 1975; and judgement No. 7943 of 3 September 1973 R.J.L 1974.