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. 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. 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 on 27 September 1987 the complainant was sentenced to a prison term on the basis of a confession obtained as a result of torture. Article 16. The repressive measures and practices described above, such as solitary confinement, violation of the right to medical care and the right to send and receive mail, restriction of family visits, etc., applied by the State party against the complainant constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. 3.2The complainant also claims that his freedom of movement and his right to work were infringed by the administrative supervision measures applied against him, as was his right to pursue his studies. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1On 4 December 2001, the State party challenged the admissibility of the complaint on the grounds that the complainant has neither employed nor exhausted available domestic remedies. 4.2The State party points out that the complainant is a well known activist of the illegal extremist movement ENNAHDA, which foments religious and racial hatred and practises violence. The State party explains that the complainant was sentenced on 27 September 1987 by the State Security Court to 10 years’ immediate imprisonment and hard labour for having carried out a terrorist attack against Ali Bouhlila, by throwing sulphuric acid over his face and abdomen on 21 March 1987. According to the State party, the complainant was also found guilty, at the same trial, of aiding and abetting other terrorist acts. 4.3The State party maintains that the complainant may still have recourse to the available domestic remedies, since, under Tunisian law, the limitation period for acts alleged to be, and characterized as, serious offences is 10 years. 4.4The 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. 4.5Under the same rules of criminal procedure, the Public Prosecutor will receive the 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. 4.6The State party explains that the complainant may, in addition, lodge with the examining magistrate during the pre-trial 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. 4.7If 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 4 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 magistrate; it may also institute new proceedings, or conduct or order an inquiry into matters which have not yet been the subject of an examination. The decisions of the indictment chamber are subject to immediate enforcement. 4.8A complainant seeking criminal indemnification may appeal on a point of law against a decision of the indictment chamber once it has been notified. This remedy is admissible when the indictment chamber rules that there are no grounds for prosecution; when it has ruled that the application for criminal indemnification is inadmissible, or that the prosecution is time-barred; when it has deemed the