CAT/C/67/D/813/2017 7.9 The Belgian authorities became complicit in the torture, first by sending federal counter-terrorism experts from the Belgian intelligence service to Guantanamo Bay to participate in the complainant’s interrogations, and then by sharing unverified and incriminating information with United States authorities, instead of genuinely trying to establish diplomatic efforts. Upon invitation by United States authorities, and with the authorization of the Belgian Federal Prosecutor, the Belgian Federal Police liaison officer and counter-terrorism investigator stationed in Washington, D.C., Mr. Clareboets, interrogated the complainant several times during his three visits to Guantanamo Bay between April 2002 and February 2004. Similar involvement by other States’ officials has been considered as a form of complicity in the mistreatment and torture of detainees abroad. The Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in his interim report of 2015, found that complicity itself could be extraterritorial, such as in cases where the individual suffering a violation was located in a territory outside the “complicit State’s control” and under the control of the principal. Since Mr. Clareboets shared information from his interrogations of the complainant at Guantanamo Bay with both the United States and Belgian authorities, corresponding directly with the Belgian Federal Prosecutor’s Office, the assertion that Mr. Clareboets reported the above-mentioned information in favour of the complainant in order to get him released is not substantiated. On the contrary, it appears from the factual evidence of the case that confidential, unverified and damaging information was shared. 7.10 The complainant reiterates that the State party violated its obligations under articles 6 (1) and (2) and 7 (1), read alone and in conjunction with articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, by failing to investigate and prosecute public officials who were complicit in acts of torture committed against the complainant while he was detained at Guantanamo Bay, even though the responsible Belgian public officials were present and continued to be present in Belgian territory. The State party also violated articles 12 and 13 of the Convention due to failure by the competent Belgian authorities to proceed with a prompt and impartial investigation, despite the existence of reasonable grounds to believe that torture had been committed against a person under the State party’s jurisdiction, and for failure to have the complainant’s case promptly and impartially examined by the State party’s competent authorities, notwithstanding the repeated requests by the complainant. 7.11 The complainant explains that he was only able to submit his civil party claim in 2011, once he had received a psychiatric report on 18 June 2010 about the consequences of the treatment he had been subjected to. The State party failed to take the necessary measures to investigate and prosecute suspects for their role in acts of torture perpetrated against the complainant, as neither the Federal Magistrate, Ms. Van de Voorde, nor the Federal Prosecutor, Mr. Bernard, nor Judge Fransen, the investigative judge, carried out any genuine investigation into the complainant’s allegations of torture inflicted on him by the United States authorities while in Guantanamo Bay. Furthermore, the complainant submits that his quest for justice in Belgium (a) was frustrated by unnecessary and complex procedural and jurisdictional hurdles and lack of judicial responsibility; (b) was not dealt with in an independent way, because the complaint against two members of the Federal Prosecutor’s Office was first assigned to the very same Federal Prosecutor’s Office, and then to the Prosecutor-General who had recently been transferred from the very same Federal Prosecutor’s Office; (c) was not conducted in a thorough manner, considering, inter alia, that none of the people involved were questioned or investigated; and (d) because the ProsecutorGeneral decided to dismiss the case solely on the basis of the written observations of the two federal magistrates against whom the complaint was addressed, without hearing the two suspects or the complainant. Formal investigations were not opened until September 2014 – more than 12 years after the beginning of the complainant’s detention and nine years after the complainant had been repatriated to Belgium. The Belgian authorities became active only after a civil party claim was submitted in November 2011. 7.12 The complainant adds that the State party has violated its obligations under article 10 of the Convention, for its failure to educate, train and inform its law enforcement personnel, public officials and other persons involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment about the absolute prohibition of torture – specifically concerning the detention, interrogation and inhuman treatment of the complainant at Guantanamo Bay. The State party also violated its obligations 12