against Torture, the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights in France and the National Council for Fundamental Freedoms in Tunisia. The complainant also refers to the Committee against Torture’s concluding observations on Tunisia, dated 19 November 1998. He stresses that the Committee against Torture recommended, among other things, that the State party should, first, ensure the right of victims of torture to lodge a complaint without the fear of being subject to any kind of reprisal, harassment, harsh treatment or prosecution, even if the outcome of the investigation does not prove their allegations, and to seek and obtain redress if those allegations are proven correct; second, ensure that medical examinations are automatically provided following allegations of abuse and that autopsies are performed following any deaths in custody; and third, ensure that the findings of all investigations concerning cases of torture are made public and that such information includes details of any offences committed, the names of the offenders, the dates, places and circumstances of the incidents and the punishment received by those found guilty. The Committee also noted that many of the regulations existing in Tunisia for the protection of arrested persons were not adhered to in practice. It also expressed its concern over the wide gap that existed between law and practice with regard to the protection of human rights, and was particularly disturbed by the reported widespread practice of torture and other cruel and degrading treatment perpetrated by security forces and the police, which, in certain cases, resulted in death in custody. adduced by the State party took place during the period 1988–1995 and were covered by the concluding observations of the Committee against Torture mentioned above. 5.13 Lastly, the complainant believes that the State party’s comments regarding his membership of the ENNAHDA movement and the aspersions cast upon it demonstrate the continued discrimination against the opposition, which is still considered illegal. According to the complainant, with its references in this context to terrorism, the State party is demonstrating its bias and, by extension, the impossibility of obtaining any remedy in Tunisia. He also stresses that the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment is a provision which admits of no exception, including for terrorists. 5.14 Finally, in the light of his previous explanations, the complainant rejects the observation by the State party to the effect that the present complaint constitutes an abuse of the right to submit complaints, an argument which, the complainant believes, shows that the State party has decided to resort to a political manoeuvre which has no legal relevance. Additional State party admissibility observations 6. On 8 November 2002 the State party again challenged the admissibility of the complaint. It maintains, first, that the complainant’s claims about recourse to the Tunisian justice system and the use of domestic remedies are baseless and unsupported by any evidence. It adds that appeal procedures do not take an unreasonable time, and that proceedings in respect of the allegations made in the complaint are not time-barred, since the time limit for bringing proceedings in such cases is 10 years. Second, the State party considers that the complainant’s claims that a complaint lodged from abroad with the Tunisian authorities is might be covered by article 305, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which permits the prosecution of those guilty of terrorist acts, are baseless. Third, the State party affirms that, contrary to the complainant’s allegations, it is open to him to instruct a lawyer of his choice to lodge a complaint from abroad. The State party adds that the complainant’s refugee status does not deprive him of his right to lay complaints before the Tunisian courts. Fourth, it maintains that domestic remedies before the Tunisian judicial authorities are not only possible in the current case but effective, as shown by the fact that victims of violations in Tunisia have obtained satisfaction. Lastly, the State party indicates that its reply of 4 December 2001 was not intended to be defamatory to the complainant, who is, nonetheless, abusing the right to submit complaints. 5.10 The complainant notes the lack of independence of the judicial system and the bodies set up to monitor application of the law. Lastly, he emphasizes that the State party’s reply, in the current case, shows that no domestic investigation has been held into the rather detailed information contained in the complaint under consideration. 5.11 The complainant also challenges the State party’s argument that the domestic remedies are effective. 5.12 With regard to the 302 cases involving police or national guard officers against whom, according to the State party, sentences have been handed down, the complainant points out that there is no tangible proof that these cases, which have not been published or made public in any way, actually took place; that the 277 cases cited by the State party as examples of abuse of authority are not relevant to the case in question; and that the State party refers only to cases which do not tarnish the image of Tunisia and therefore include no case of inhuman or degrading treatment. He explains that the cases 126