9.6Concerning the allegations relating to the trial, the complainant considers that the State party remains silent concerning the conditions in which his trial took place, and has failed to embark on any investigation to check the allegations of torture that he made before the judge. 9.7Concerning the allegations relating to his confession, the complainant maintains that his confession was extracted under torture, and, citing the reports of CNLT, states that such methods are used in political trials and sometimes in trials involving offences under ordinary law. Concerning the length of the trials, the complainant states that the 1992 trial was summary in nature because it formed part of a spate of trials aimed at putting as many members of the ENNAHDA movement as possible behind bars, while the 1995 trial was protracted since the lawyers insisted on the principle of double jeopardy. The complainant also notes that the State party is silent about his arrest a few months after the Presidential pardon of 1987. 9.8Concerning the conditions in which he was held, the complainant considers that the State party is taking refuge behind legal texts in order to dismiss the detailed information he provides. He points out that the question of transferring him for the purposes of the investigation never arose, and calls on the State party to prove the contrary. 9.9In relation to visits, the complainant explains that each time he was transferred, his family had difficulty discovering his new place of detention. He considers that denial of visits constituted a form of revenge against him each time he sought to exercise a right and took action to that end, for example in the form of hunger strikes. He points out that the prison entry and exit logs can confirm his claims. In addition, the complainant’s family found it difficult to exercise the right to visit him because of the conditions imposed on the visitors - the complainant’s mother was ill-treated to make her remove her scarf, and was made to wait many hours for a visit lasting a few minutes. 9.10Concerning the allegations relating to the provision of care, the complainant draws the Committee’s attention to the medical certificate contained in his file. Concerning the treatment cited by the State party, the complainant demands the production of his medical file by the State party. 9.11In relation to administrative supervision, the complainant considers that any punishment, including those provided for in the Tunisian Criminal Code, may be characterized as inhuman and degrading if the goal pursued does not include the reconciliation of the offender with his social environment. He points out in particular that his resumption of his studies prompted a tightening of the administrative supervision, including imposition of an obligation to report to the police twice a day, insistent surveillance by the university police and a ban on contacts with the other students. Concerning his summonses, the complainant states that the three years which elapsed between his two summonses in 1995 and 1998 corresponded to the period he spent in prison after being arrested again in 1995. According to the complainant, administrative supervision serves only to bolster the police’s stranglehold over the freedom of movement of former prisoners. 9.12Concerning the situation of his family, the complainant records the suffering caused by the police surveillance and various forms of intimidation. He mentions that two of his brothers (Nabil and Lofti) were imprisoned in advance of his arrest, and that his mother was detained for a whole day. In addition, according to the complainant, the authorities’ deliberate decision to move him far from his family affected the pattern of the visits. 9.13Concerning the application of article 11 of the Convention, the complainant considers that the State party once again contents itself with a theoretical description of its legal arsenal and a reference to the activities of the Higher Committee on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, a non-independent institution. Citing documents issued by non-governmental organizations,k the complainant notes violations relating to the supervision of detention and police custody, such as manipulation of the dates when arrests were recorded, and incommunicado detention. He notes that the State party has not responded to his precise allegations relating to his detention for over a month in 1987, for 56 days in 1991 and for 18 days in 1995. 9.14In relation to the ENNAHDA movement, the complainant maintains that the organization is well known for its democratic ideals and its opposition to dictatorship and impunity, contrary to the State party’s explanations. In addition, he challenges the accusations of terrorism levelled by the State party, which in fact form part of a complete fabrication. 9.15Lastly, according to the complainant, the State party is endeavouring to place the entire burden of proof on the victim, accusing him of inertia and failure to act, seeking protection behind a panoply of legal measures which theoretically enable victims to lodge complaints and evading its duty to ensure that those responsible for crimes, including that of torture, are automatically prosecuted. According to the complainant, the State party is thus knowingly ignoring the fact that international law and practice in relation to torture place greater emphasis on the role of States and their duties in order to enable proceedings to be completed. The complainant notes that the State party places the burden of proof on the victim alone, even though the supporting evidence, such as legal files, registers of police custody and visits, and so on, is in the sole hands of the State party and unavailable to the complainant. Referring to European case law,l the complainant points out that the European Court and Commission call on States parties, in the case of allegations of torture or ill-treatment, to conduct an effective investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment and not to content themselves with citing the theoretical arsenal of options available to the victim to lodge a complaint. Consideration of the merits 10.1The Committee examined the complaint, taking due account of all the information provided to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 10.2The Committee took note of the State party’s observations of 3 April 2003 challenging the admissibility of the complaint. It notes that the points raised by the State party are not such as to prompt reconsideration of the Committee’s decision on admissibility, notably owing to the lack of new or additional information from the State party on the matter of investigations voluntarily carried out by the State party (see paragraph 7.2). The Committee therefore does not consider that it should review its decision on admissibility.