CAT/C/67/D/813/2017 under article 14 of the Convention as it failed to ensure that the complainant obtained redress, including rehabilitation, for torture committed against him while detained at Guantanamo Bay, particularly due to the failure of Belgian authorities to properly and genuinely investigate the complainant’s allegations of torture.31 7.13 In conclusion, the complainant submits that he has never been recognized as a victim of torture by Belgium, a State that has a duty to protect him, but rather has been treated as an enemy. This began in Guantanamo Bay, where he was unfairly labelled and treated as an “unlawful enemy combatant”, and continues to this day in Belgium, where he is stigmatized as a “former Guantanamo Bay detainee”. The complainant’s only desire is to try to put his life back together and live a normal life with his family. He requests that the State party provide him with full redress – as a victim of well-documented torture – for which Belgium bears significant responsibility. State party’s additional observations 8.1 On 5 April 2019, the State party submitted that the complainant had filed on 31 December 2018 a claim for civil extracontractual liability against Belgium before the Brussels Court of First Instance, due to the State party’s unlawful actions, namely: collaborating actively with the United States authorities, and the absence of any effective assistance during the complainant’s arbitrary detention and inhuman treatment in Guantanamo Bay, in violation of articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. The complainant also claimed that the State party had failed to undertake a prompt criminal investigation to establish accountability of the State party’s officials, from 2011 to 2016, in violation of article 3, read together with article 13, of the European Convention on Human Rights. 8.2 The complainant requested provisional compensation of €200,000, to be increased for interest and the costs of the procedure. During the opening hearing, on 11 January 2019, a calendar was established for the exchange of views between the parties, and a plenary hearing was fixed for 5 June 2020. The State party submitted that since the complainant had seized the Brussels Court of First Instance with the same claims, the complaint should be considered inadmissible. Complainant’s additional comments 9.1 On 15 May 2019, the complainant submitted additional comments in response to the admissibility observations of the Government of Belgium, of 5 April 2019. 9.2 The complainant considers the State party’s argument of inadmissibility due to pending parallel proceedings for extracontractual civil liability of Belgium as erroneous. The State party’s position with regard to the civil claim filed on 31 December 2018 is that this would be barred by the statute of limitations, as the State party claimed that the time period of five years for claiming extracontractual damages would have elapsed. In the complainant’s view, the State party is aiming to have both procedures closed for inadmissibility, rather than admitting the tort suffered by the complainant during his unlawful detention in Guantanamo Bay. 9.3 The State party’s attempt to have the claim dismissed must be firmly rejected, as the claim is not supported by the provisions of the Convention. According to article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, the Committee is not to consider any communications unless it has ascertained that “the same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement”. This means that only procedures on the same matter under international or regional human rights treaties are suitable for barring of the examination,32 whereas the domestic civil claim filed by the complainant is not covered by that provision. 9.4 Article 22 (5) (b) requires the individual to have exhausted all available domestic remedies, unless the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to 31 32 See, for example, Dimitrijevic v. Serbia and Montenegro (CAT/C/35/D/172/2000), paras. 7.4–9. Manfred Nowak and Elizabeth McArthur, “The United Nations Convention against Torture: a commentary”, Oxford Commentaries on International Law (2008), para. 4.13. 13