CAT/C/46/D/341/2008 domestic remedies. The State party lastly recalls that no legal provision, including the Order mentioned above, prohibits members of the public from lodging complaints for assault committed for any reason other than to protect persons and property, safeguard the nation and preserve the institutions of the State party. Additional comments by the complainant 7.1 On 30 December 2009, the complainant commented on the State party’s observations of 2 March 2009. In respect of the admissibility of the complaint, she asserts that it was her intention not to avoid her obligation to apply to domestic bodies, but rather to learn the truth about what really happened at Mechraâ-Sfa gendarmerie between 1 and 3 November 1998. However, all the steps taken have proved fruitless. Furthermore, the procedure before the investigating judge referred to by the State party is complicated and costly, and would certainly not have produced any results, as all such procedures have become meaningless since the adoption of the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation. 7.2 The complainant recalls the numerous legal and administrative steps taken since the death of her husband in 1998. She notes that her last registered letter submitted to the principal State prosecutor of Tiaret on 16 February 2008 has elicited no response, despite the wording “suspicious death” on the death certificate issued on 3 April 2006 and signed by the Tiaret wilaya forensic unit. The complainant therefore considers that she did not attempt to avoid her obligation to exhaust domestic remedies. Indeed, there is every indication that the complaints made would inevitably have been to no avail. The complainant refers in particular to the fact that the Tiaret prosecution service requested the autopsy in haste on the day of the burial; that it was only possible to obtain a copy of the autopsy report more than 10 years after the victim’s death and only then in the context of the procedure before the Committee; that the officers in charge of questioning the witnesses to the events while the procedure was before the Committee were the same ones responsible for the death of the victim; that, after the complaint was submitted to the Committee, the complainant, members of her family and fellow detainees of the victim were summoned to appear and questioned in the gendarmerie where the victim is alleged to have been tortured; and that the victim’s brother is allegedly under surveillance by the State party’s authorities. 7.3 Although the State party’s authorities should have acted proprio motu and immediately, it was in fact the family who had to take steps and file a criminal complaint on 12 January 1999. Despite that, the prosecution service did not respond, which was incomprehensible to the complainant, particularly since it was the same prosecution service that had ordered the autopsy on the day of the victim’s burial. The complainant therefore believes that she is justified in mentioning the ineffectiveness and also the unavailability of domestic remedies. 7.4 The complainant considers the procedure before the investigating judge to be complicated and costly. She notes first of all that, given the victim’s detention until just a few hours before his death and his worrying state of health — he was not old and had previously been in perfect health — it was the responsibility of the prosecution service, not the family of the victim, to bring criminal proceedings. The complainant quotes the Committee’s previous concluding observations to the State party in which it considered that the State party should launch prompt and impartial investigations spontaneously and systematically wherever there was reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed, including in the event of the death of a detainee. The Committee added that the State party should ensure that the results of the investigation are communicated to GE.11-43885 9