CCPR/C/112/D/2046/2011 3), 7, 9 (para. 1), 10 (para.1), 17, 19, 21 and 23 of the Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party on 16 May 1989. The facts as presented by the author 2.1 On 3 November 1986, Saleh Salem Hmeed, the author’s husband, reported to the authorities that a body had been found in his well. As soon as the public prosecution service opened the investigation, Saleh Salem Hmeed was arrested and placed in police custody. The victim’s widow, who stood accused of adultery and of being an accessory to the murder, was also arrested. Saleh Salem Hmeed was held in a tiny isolation cell for one month, despite the fact that the law sets a maximum of 48 hours. While in custody, he was tortured by the authorities in order to extract a confession and incriminate him for the murder. As a result, Saleh Salem Hmeed experienced psychiatric problems with severe long-term effects. Although the Prosecutor of Tripoli ordered his placement in a psychiatric facility, 1 the prison administration refused to accord him medical supervision. He was brought before a judge for the first time on 28 January 1987, after the indictments chamber referred him to the Criminal Court of Tripoli on the following charges: premeditated murder, adultery with the victim’s wife and digging a well without official authorization. 2.2 During the proceedings, Saleh Salem Hmeed had the assistance of a lawyer appointed by the Prosecutor-General, but only for the trial phase. Following an expedited hearing, he was convicted on 2 April 1988 of rape and murder and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. The ruling was based chiefly on the testimony of the victim’s wife — who, as co-defendant, had been acquitted — and of her brother. Saleh Salem Hmeed then signed a form and an official register with a view to appealing the ruling. However, the People’s Advocacy Department, which should have transmitted the appeal to a higher court, did not complete the necessary procedures and the appeal did not take place, making the ruling definitive. 2.3 As soon as an independent lawyer could be retained, and because of the judicial authorities’ categorical refusal to review the case on appeal, an application for a retrial was filed with the public prosecution service of the Criminal Court of Tripoli with a view to having the case reconsidered and ensuring that Saleh Salem Hmeed was given a fair trial. The family also made various informal approaches to the judicial and political authorities, resulting in a decision by the Ministry of Justice to reopen the case in 1994 after the detectives heading the investigation found new evidence that justified a retrial. Although suspects were arrested and questioned, they were eventually released when the country’s highest political authorities intervened, and the case was once again closed. None of the actions undertaken produced results, and the public prosecution service of Tripoli formally rejected the application for a retrial on 15 March 1997, in a decision recommending that Saleh Salem Hmeed seek a pardon in order to be released, which he refused to do because he considered himself to be the victim of an injustice. 2.4 On 29 January 2001, the family initiated legal proceedings in the Appeals Court of Tripoli against the secretary and the director of the General People’s Committee for Justice, the director of the Judicial Oversight Committee and the director of the People’s Advocacy Department on grounds of negligence by the Department (in handling the appeal of the sentence dated 2 April 1988);2 no action has been taken in these proceedings. 2.5 In response to the violations suffered by Saleh Salem Hmeed, the author (his wife) and their sons appealed to non-governmental organizations and activists in the field of human rights while he was still detained. They also accepted a well-known activist’s invitation to attend a peaceful sit-in planned for 17 February 2007 to protest the human 1 2 4 The author has included this order in the file. A copy of the complaint is in the file. GE.14-22374