CAT/C/52/D/477/2011 observed with concern that a climate of impunity appears to have taken hold in the country7 with respect to violations of the Convention. He also refers to the judgement handed down in Boutagni v. France, in which the European Court of Human Rights noted that international reports on the human rights situation in Morocco all denounced the illtreatment of people suspected of taking part in terrorist acts.8 5.11 The complainant states that he was powerless to ensure that any particular piece of information was recorded in the transcripts of his hearings, whether during his time in custody or during his appearance before the investigating judge. During his arraignment, the investigating judge was “introduced” to him as the chief of the officials who had been questioning him, which is why he decided not to lodge any complaint with the judge. Nevertheless, given his physical condition at the time, the investigating judge should have ordered that medical examinations be performed. During his second appearance, when he was assisted by counsel, the complainant retracted his “confession” and complained of acts of torture, but that statement was not recorded in the transcripts. The complainant could not compel the judge to abide by the law. What is more, the judge knew what had occurred and would already have taken action had he intended to do so. Lastly, the complainant complained to the Minister of Justice and filed a criminal complaint. No action was taken, and no type of investigation was undertaken until later on, when the inquiry was reactivated. The complainant fears that the inquiry will not be pursued in earnest, given its slow pace, ineffectiveness, lack of transparency and the fact that objective evidence from both sides is not being sought, as demonstrated by the supposedly expert examination performed on the complainant. 5.12 He notes that, in its observations, the State party does not dispute the fact that the charges brought against the complainant are chiefly based on the statements that he is said to have made while in police custody and that were confirmed during his initial examination before the investigating judge. Yet, throughout the rest of the proceedings, the complainant has said that those confessions are not valid. 5.13 The State party makes no mention of the dismissal of the complaint in September 2011 and gives no explanation for that decision. Nor does it explain why the inquiry was reopened or why it was reinitiated at that particular point in time. It says nothing about the type of expert examination requested, the doctor who was instructed to perform it, the tests that were done or their results. The State party does not address the fact that no interpreter assisted the complainant while he was in police custody or that he was asked to sign documents written in Arabic. Photographs were apparently taken of the complainant upon his arrival at the Salé II Prison. However, they were not produced during the proceedings in order to verify his claims about his physical condition. On 21 March 2012, the complainant’s attorneys wrote to the Minister of Justice, the Prosecutor-General at the Rabat Court of Appeal and the director of the prison and requested access to those photographs and to the complainant’s prison file, but their letters went unanswered. Additional information from the parties Information from the complainant 6.1 The complainant has written to the Committee on several occasions about events that have occurred since the time that he submitted his comments on the State party’s 7 8 GE.14-06421 Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture regarding the fourth periodic report of Morocco, adopted on 17 November 2011 (CAT/C/MAR/CO/4), para. 16. European Court of Human Rights, Boutagni v. France, No. 42360/08, judgement of 18 November 2010, para. 46. 9