Article 4. It is alleged that the State party has not ensured that all the acts of torture to which the complainant has been subjected are offences under its criminal law. alleged to be, and characterized as, serious offences is 10 years. 4.2 The State party explains that, under the criminal justice system, the complainant may submit a complaint, from within Tunisia or abroad, to a representative of the Public Prosecutor’s Office with jurisdiction in the area in question. He may also authorize a Tunisian lawyer of his own choice to submit such a complaint or request a foreign lawyer to do so with the assistance of a Tunisian colleague. Article 5. It is alleged that the State party has instituted no legal proceedings against those responsible for torturing the complainant. Article 11. It is alleged that the authorities have not used their supervisory powers to prevent torture; instead, specific instructions have been given that torture is to be applied. 4.3 Under the same rules of criminal procedure, the Public Prosecutor will receive the said complaint and institute a judicial inquiry. In accordance with article 53 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the examining magistrate to whom the case is referred will hear the author of the complaint. In the light of this hearing, he may decide to hear witnesses, question suspects, undertake on-site investigations and seize physical evidence. He may also order expert studies and carry out any actions which he deems necessary for the uncovering of evidence, both in favour of and against the complainant, with a view to discovering the truth and verifying facts on which the trial court will be able to base its decision. Article 12. It is alleged that the State party has not carried out an investigation of the acts of torture committed against the complainant. Article 13. It is alleged that the State party has not effectively upheld the complainant’s right to lodge a complaint with the competent authorities. Article 14. It is alleged that the State party has ignored the complainant’s right to make a complaint and has thereby deprived him of his right to redress and rehabilitation. Article 15. It is alleged that the complainant was sentenced in 1992 and 1995 to prison sentences on the basis of confessions obtained as a result of torture. 4.4 The State party explains that the complainant may, in addition, lodge with the examining magistrate during the pretrial proceedings an application for criminal indemnification for any harm suffered, over and above the criminal charges brought against those responsible for the offences against him. Article 16. The repressive measures and practices described above, such as solitary confinement, violation of the right to medical care and medicine and the right to send and receive mail, restriction of family visits, house arrest and harassment of his family, applied by the State party against the complainant constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. 4.5 If the examining magistrate deems that the public right of action is not exercisable, that the acts do not constitute a violation or that there is no prima facie case against the accused, he shall rule that there are no grounds for prosecution. If, on the other hand, the magistrate deems that the acts constitute an offence punishable by imprisonment, he shall send the accused before a competent court—which in the present instance, where a serious offence has been committed, would be the indictment chamber. All rulings by the examining magistrate are immediately communicated to all the parties to the proceedings, including the complainant who brought the criminal indemnification proceedings. Having been thus notified within a period of 48 hours, the complainant may, within four days, lodge an appeal against any ruling prejudicial to his interests. This appeal, submitted in writing or orally, is received by the clerk of the court. If there is prima facie evidence of the commission of an offence, the indictment chamber sends the accused before the competent court (criminal court or criminal division of a court of first instance), having given rulings on all the counts established during the proceedings. If it chooses, it may also order further information to be provided by one of its assessors or by the examining 3.2 The complainant also alleges that his right to practise his religion while in detention, his freedom of movement and his right to work were infringed by the administrative supervision measures applied against him, as was his right to continue his studies. He seeks redress for the harm inflicted on him and on his family, including cessation of the daily harassment of his family by the local police, and requests that they be granted passports. State party’s admissibility observations 4.1 On 4 December 2001, the State party challenged the admissibility of the complaint on the grounds that the complainant had neither employed nor exhausted available domestic remedies. It maintains, first, that the complainant may still have recourse to the available domestic remedies, since, under Tunisian law, the limitation period for acts 123