CAT/C/52/D/477/2011 3.2 With regard to article 2, paragraph 1, the complainant considers that the State party failed to take all effective measures to prevent him from being tortured. This violation is all the more serious because he drew the attention of the Minister of Justice to the acts in question, requested an expert medical examination and, finally, lodged an official complaint. However, the authorities did not respond. 3.3 The complainant maintains that, if the State party had respected its obligations under article 11, he would not have suffered the treatment inflicted on him in order to obtain his “confession”. The State party has been confronted with numerous allegations of torture for years but has not modified its conduct in any way. The Minister of Justice had, however, been made aware of the concerns of the complainant’s lawyers regarding his state of health as early as 16 December 2010. 3.4 Regarding articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, in view of the particular circumstances of the case and the context in which the events took place, there is, undeniably, reasonable ground to believe that the complainant was tortured. He was questioned several times by the Spanish authorities in the course of the two investigations launched against him in Spain for terrorist offences. During three years of inquiries, which concluded with the dismissal of the charges, he consistently denied that he belonged to any terrorist association. It is thus unthinkable that he would suddenly have confessed on being handed over to the Moroccan authorities. 3.5 In Morocco, no prompt, in-depth investigation meeting the standards required under the Convention was conducted. The investigating judge should have taken action as soon as the complainant appeared before him for the first time in December 2010. The Rabat Court of Appeal, sitting in Salé at first instance, neither requested that the documents concerning the allegations of torture be attached to the case file nor ordered that the complaint be investigated. No attempt was made during the investigation into the complaint to identify the perpetrators of the torture, and the investigation was conducted by the same police force that had inflicted the treatment complained of on the complainant. Moreover, neither the public prosecutor’s office nor the investigating judge took action when the complainant emerged from police custody in a state of profound shock and bearing numerous signs of the ill-treatment that he had suffered, and, again, it was the Rabat public prosecutor’s office that was given responsibility for the investigation. 3.6 The complainant and his defence lawyers have, furthermore, been subjected to pressure and intimidation. The complainant does not feel at all safe in his place of detention. 3.7 The complainant considers that the State party violated article 15 of the Convention because it did not ensure that any statement made as a result of torture could not be invoked as evidence in the proceedings against him. State party’s observations 4.1 In a note verbale dated 11 December 2011, the State party challenged the admissibility of the communication. It informed the Committee that the complainant had been placed in detention immediately on arrival in Morocco on 14 December 2010. The complainant was suspected of belonging to the Harrakat al-moujahidine fi al-maghrib (AlMujahidin Movement in Morocco), a terrorist organization. The investigation conducted by the criminal investigation department under the supervision of the public prosecutor’s office established that he had been recruited by Abdelkader Belliraj (case concerning the dismantling of the terrorist organization of the same name) and had been involved in the smuggling of firearms into Morocco from Europe (Melilla) between 2002 and 2006. Immediately on arrival in Morocco, he was taken into police custody; the period of custody was extended once, on 18 December 2010, and again, on 22 December 2010, as provided GE.14-06421 5