CAT/C/57/D/551/2013 3.2 The complainant also maintains that the State party violated his rights under article 11 of the Convention by keeping him in custody for an excessive period of 11 days before bringing him before a judicial authority, keeping him incommunicado for the first 6 days of his custody and recording a false date for his arrest. 3.3 According to the complainant, the State party also violated his rights under articles 11 and 16 of the Convention by subjecting him to cruel, inhuman and degrading conditions of detention for 11 days at the national guard post in El Aouina. 3.4 Moreover, the complainant believes the State party violated his rights under articles 12, 13 and 14 of the Convention by not conducting a prompt, independent and diligent investigation following the allegations of torture made in front of the investigating judge, the court of first instance and the appeal court, and the complaints filed by his lawyers and wife.8 3.5 The complainant also claims that the State party’s refusal to grant him redress and adequate compensation for the acts of torture to which he was subjected constitutes a violation of article 14 of the Convention; and that his conviction on the basis of a confession obtained under torture gave rise to a violation of his rights under article 15 of the Convention. 3.6 Lastly, the complainant accuses the State party of violations of articles 15 and 16 of the Convention, in that he was convicted on the basis of a confession obtained under torture and kept in detention following an unfair trial. These actions prolonged the effects of torture and caused the complainant mental suffering that constitutes cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, adding to the physical suffering inherent in imprisonment and the fact that the complainant cannot receive appropriate care for the after-effects of the torture. State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 In its observations dated 10 December 2013, the State party does not challenge the admissibility of the communication. As for the merits, the State party points out that an investigation has been opened into the communication by the investigating judge at office No. 15 of the Tunis court of first instance under articles 104 and 106 of the Tunisian Code of Criminal Procedure. These articles are concerned with investigations into acts of torture committed by public servants in the exercise of their duties. The case was registered following the complaint filed on behalf of the complainant with the prosecutor at the Tunis court of first instance. 4.2 The complainant was heard by an investigating judge of that court. In his statements he confirmed the substance of the complaint, claiming to have been violently assaulted and ill-treated on 10 September 2011 by security officers. Three witnesses, including the complainant’s wife, were heard. According to the State party, the investigations into this are still under way, with the aim of establishing the truth. 4.3 Respectful of the provisions of the Convention and its Optional Protocol, as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the State party is working within the framework of its international commitments to respect international human rights standards and values. The State party is prepared to respond to all allegations of human 8 GE.16-13706 The complainant attaches a letter in Arabic from the State prosecutor to the Mornaguia prison director, dated 16 September 2011. According to the complainant, the prosecutor responds in this letter to the complainant’s own letter to him, dated 4 July 2011, drawing attention to the complaint of torture filed by his lawyer on 26 September 2009. The prosecutor informs the complainant, via the prison director, that his complaint has been forwarded to the investigating judge responsible for investigating the charges against the prisoner. The complaint was reportedly placed on file with the investigating judge on 12 June 2009, i.e. before the complainant had been arrested. 5