CAT/C/67/D/813/2017 [will] evaluate the possibility of release or transfer of one or more of your nationals detained in Guantanamo Bay”. 6.11 The complainant bases his claims on the fact that Mr. Clareboets “shared the information from his interrogations of the complainant at Guantanamo Bay with both the United States and the Belgian authorities” to substantiate the alleged complicity of Belgium in violation of article 2 of the Convention. However, the complainant denies that the report by Mr. Clareboets was established in his favour, with a view to his liberation or transfer, and that it was transmitted together with the submission by the complainant’s family. Moreover, the Administrative Review Board confirmed the complainant’s absence of a criminal record in Belgium. Therefore, the report by Mr. Clareboets aimed to help the complainant while pleading in favour of his return. Mr. Clareboets attested, following the complainant’s interrogation of 28 April 2005: “He described numerous interrogations to which he was subjected by the Americans and the very harsh detention conditions, complaining that he was not informed about the expected length of his detention. In addition, he was not presented with any accusations against him, was not informed about his rights and could not enjoy the right of legal assistance. In this regard, we have always informed him that the Belgian authorities will stand by him.”17 6.12 In April 2004, the high-level delegation of Belgium was received at the United States Department of State, and expressed its intention to monitor the complainant and his codetainee, if released. In September 2004, the United States authorities interrupted the negotiations and examined the possible removal of the complainant to his second country of nationality, Morocco, after having discovered contact between his brother Ahmed and the leadership of Al-Qaida. The two detainees were released on 25 April 2005, after an intervention by the Prime Minister of Belgium, Guy Verhofstadt, with the President of the United States, George Bush. The State party adds that its authorities have been in regular contact with the complainant’s counsel, including by telephone. 6.13 As regards allegations under articles 6 (1) and (2) and 7 (1) of the Convention, the State party claims that the Belgian alleged suspects have remained present in the territory of Belgium. It opposes the claim that it would have an obligation to conduct an inquiry in the absence of a complaint of torture. The State party submits that the complainant submitted a civil claim against two Belgian judges – Ms. Van de Voorde and Daniel Bernard – who had requested a visit to the complainant at Guantanamo Bay by Mr. Clareboets. The civil claim was, however, dismissed as it opposed judicial competence, and the investigations of the judges concerned were closed without hearing the Chief Commissioner for Anti-Terrorism of the Federal Police or a liaison officer who had visited the complainant. The State party rejects the complainant’s claims that the Belgian authorities contributed by their passivity to his exposure to torture as they had allegedly exercised partial de facto control over him during the visit, as manifestly ill-founded. The complainant’s claims against Mr. Clareboets and the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office were twice transferred to the Royal Prosecutor, but the Court of First Instance ruled on 18 January 2012 that the investigations were to be carried out by the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office. The State party refutes the complainant’s argument that the two-year delay in investigation could be considered as denial of justice. Following the complainant’s appeal, the investigation was finally transferred to the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office on 2 July 2014. 6.14 The State party submits that both judges provided their written statements to the Federal Public Prosecutor. On 6 October 2015, the Court of Appeal affirmed that the federal judges and the liaison officer had not been implicated in the alleged acts of torture, and hence could not be held criminally liable. The investigation was carried out by an investigating judge, who is a member of the Court of First Instance, with due respect for independence and impartiality. The conclusions on the investigations have been made by two separate judicial institutions – the Chamber of the Council and the House of Charges. The complainant also questioned, without any evidence, the independence of the Federal Public Prosecutor, as the latter reportedly could not investigate effectively the complaint submitted against the members of the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office. The State party submits that the alleged 17 8 Mr. Clareboets was heard as a witness in the criminal procedure against the complainant, not as a party to the complainant’s civil claim against Mr. Clareboets and others.