CAT/C/52/D/477/2011 observations. He states that on 18 April 2012, the Prosecutor-General again dismissed the complaint of torture that he had filed in May 2011 on the grounds that his claims had not been substantiated. No action has been taken on his request for the initiation of criminal indemnification proceedings either. The complainant again sent requests to the Minister of Justice and the Rabat Prosecutor-General for, among other things, the reports concerning his hearing of 7 January 2012 and the forensic medical examination of 8 January 2012 and for the photographs of him that were taken upon his arrival at the Salé II Prison, because he believed that they could provide information that could have a bearing on his appeal against his conviction. 6.2 The reports on the expert medical examination and the hearing were communicated to the complainant on 29 May 2012. However, these reports were prepared by the same services whose members had tortured him and contain irregularities. For example, the statement he made to the investigators is signed, whereas he did not sign anything during the interview because he could not understand the transcripts drafted in Arabic. He maintains that he did not say that he had fully recovered, yet the report says just the opposite. It also says that the complainant’s body no longer bore any sign of ill-treatment, yet his sister saw such signs on his wrists and behind his right ear and his wife saw marks of cigarette burns. The complainant also received a photograph, but it is the one on his arrest sheet, not the one taken by prison personnel upon his arrival at Salé II Prison. The expert medical report is one-sided and contains errors. For example, it says that an ear, nose and throat examination was performed, which is not the case. 6.3 At the request of the complainant’s counsel, Dr. B., who is a doctor and an independent expert on torture, gave his opinion on the medical report and concluded that a complete medical and psychological examination in accordance with the Manual on Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol) should have been carried out. Such an examination includes tests performed by independent physicians who specialize in evaluating people who are thought to have been subjected to torture. The report does not provide details on the tests that were done and gives almost no detailed information on the results of those tests. The doctors did not attempt to obtain the reports of the doctors who examined the complainant while he was in police custody or in prison. The report does not say whether the examination took place in the presence of police officers or prison personnel or whether the complainant was handcuffed or otherwise physically restrained. The substantive portion of the report consists of one and a half pages, and mention of his claims that he was tortured is limited to just two short sentences. The report contains no diagrams or photographs. All the report does is to note the existence of scars on his lower extremities from an old road traffic accident. There is no indication that the complainant’s allegations were evaluated. Since the examination took place over a year after his arrest and it was therefore unlikely that there would be visible marks on his body, a complete, fullbody examination would have been called for. Furthermore, the report makes no mention of any psychiatric or psychological assessment, which demonstrates that the examination did not meet international standards for the evaluation of claims of torture. 6.4 The report on the expert medical examination and Dr. B’s report were submitted to Dr. H.B., a Moroccan physician who specializes in the detection of torture. He describes the forensic medical report as being “so brief that neither the Board nor the parties concerned can be confident that Mr. Ali Aarrass actually underwent a complete, thorough examination. The brevity of the report is evident at all levels … The conclusions are equally terse and are not in line with the recommendations made in the Istanbul Protocol, since the expert must not merely say whether or not physical sequelae associated with acts of torture are present but must also provide his or her opinion as to the degree of consistency between all the evidence obtained from physical and psychological observations, diagnostic test results, the expert’s knowledge of methods of torture used in 10 GE.14-06421