CAT/C/57/D/531/2012 investigating chamber, and the falsified signatures of the investigating judge of that chamber and his clerk. 4.4 Pursuant to a decision of the Supreme Court, a criminal investigation was then opened by the investigating judge at Skikda; as a judge, the complainant benefited from jurisdictional privilege. The complainant was summoned for questioning several times by the investigating judge but did not appear, which had led the latter to draw up a warrant, on 15 June 2011, for the complainant to be brought before him. As the latter persisted in his refusal to appear, the investigating judge issued a warrant for his arrest on 28 June 2011. 4.5 Once the investigation was complete, the investigating judge at Skikda referred the case back to the Indictments Chamber, which, on 19 September 2011, issued an order committing the complainant for trial before the criminal court sitting at Skikda, where he would face charges of forgery of public documents and abuse of office, which are offences under article 214 of the Criminal Code and article 33 of Act No. 06.01 on preventing and combating corruption. 4.6 On 23 November 2011, the criminal court sitting at Skikda handed down a judgment convicting the complainant in his absence and sentencing him to life imprisonment. 4.7 The State party says the rest of the facts alleged by the complainant are no more than a “series of inventions and falsehoods not worthy of further attention”. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s submission 5.1 On 24 February 2014, the complainant contested the State party’s arguments and reiterated his allegations in their entirety. He maintained in particular that the State party had not provided any response to his allegations or any evidence in support of its own accusations. He attaches copies of the reports which he had sent to the prosecutor, just after he had been informed that, in his absence, his signature had been falsified in order to draw up a forged release order, and which he had submitted to the prosecutor a second time, in person, on 13 September 2010. 5.2 The complainant denies having been summoned to appear before the investigating judge at Skikda Court, as the State party claims. Additional submissions by the complainant 6.1 On 20 November 2014, the complainant informed the Committee that death threats had been made against him on 6 November 2014 in front of El-Ihsan Mosque, in Argenteuil, France, where he is now living, by two individuals, whom he named and who claimed to be agents of the Intelligence and Security Department (DRS). They enjoined him to withdraw the complaint he had submitted to the Committee, adding: “Otherwise, you’re dead.” The complainant filed a complaint with the Argenteuil police, on 8 November 2014, for death threats. He attached to his submission a copy of an article from the 6 July 2014 edition of the Algerian daily El Watan detailing his complaint to the Committee. According to the complainant, this was what triggered the death threats made against him. 6.2 On 5 February 2015, the rapporteur on reprisals under article 22 requested the State party to take all necessary measures to protect the life, safety and personal inviolability of the complainant and to ensure that he did not suffer any irreparable harm. The State party was given 30 days, until 6 April 2015, to inform the Committee of the measures taken pursuant to this request. No response has been received. 6.3 On 7 May 2015, the complainant informed the Committee that the investigation into the death threats had been completed and that the case had been referred to the Pontoise GE.16-13805 5