CAT/C/57/D/531/2012 electric shocks. Overcome with panic, the complainant tried to open the window to escape. The Inspector General then ordered him to leave the office, shouting: “I am the law!” 2.13 On arriving home, the complainant telephoned the Guelma Chief Prosecutor to lodge a complaint. The latter refused to record the complaint but warned the complainant against the Inspector General, who, he emphasized, was all-powerful. Not satisfied with this response, the complainant demanded a hearing at the Ministry of Justice, which he was denied. 2.14 On 23 January 2011, the complainant lodged a formal complaint with the Guelma Chief Prosecutor against the Inspector General of the Ministry of Justice for acts of torture and arbitrary detention. On 9 May 2011, the proceedings in respect of his complaint were discontinued.3 The complainant emphasizes that this decision is not subject to appeal. 2.15 The complainant contacted a friend, a colonel in the army, who told him that he was in danger and should find a secure, secret place in which to hide. The complainant requested permission from the Ministry of Justice to leave the country for medical treatment.4 On 10 February 2011, the complainant applied to the Consulate of France for a visa, which he was granted. He then left Algeria definitively for Paris on 16 February 2011. 2.16 On 18 February 2011, the complainant lodged a complaint with the President of Algeria, to which there has been no follow-up. He notes that, following his complaint, the President transferred the Inspector General to another post, in April 2011. The complaint 3. The complainant alleges that he was the victim of torture and threats because of his work as an investigating judge and the sensitive information in his possession, including in relation to the murder of the Director General of Police. He does not invoke any articles of the Convention other than article 22. State party’s observations 4.1 On 20 June 2013, the State party submitted observations on admissibility and on the merits of the communication. 4.2 The State party maintains, first, that the communication should be declared inadmissible because the complainant has failed to exhaust all domestic remedies. According to the State party, the decision of the Guelma Chief Prosecutor to discontinue proceedings, which was submitted by the complainant, is a forgery. The Guelma Chief Prosecutor affirms that no complaint was ever lodged with his office by the complainant, that he has never signed a decision to discontinue the proceedings in respect of such a complaint and that, moreover, drawing up such a document does not fall within his remit, but rather that of the public prosecutor. After this situation was discovered, a criminal investigation was opened against the complainant for forgery on 7 May 2013, on the basis of a complaint by the Chief Prosecutor, whose signature had been falsified. 4.3 Regarding the merits, the State party notes that, during the month of September 2010, the public prosecutor at Souk Ahras was informed that the complainant had issued a forged order to release seized funds to an accused. He in turn informed the Chief Prosecutor at Guelma Court, who instructed him to institute proceedings. The public prosecutor took the matter to the director of the bank that had executed the order, who confirmed the information and gave him a copy of the order, which, contrary to the requirements of the law, did not bear the stamp of the prosecutor’s office, but instead that of the second 3 4 4 Decision in the file. The complainant suffers from renal failure. GE.16-13805