CAT/C/59/D/606/2014 9.3 The State party adds that large sums of money were found in the complainant’s tent at the time of his arrest. It disputes the complainant’s claim that he was arrested on 7 November at the home of one of his friends, Mehdi Toubali. The State party adds that during the hearing of 8 February 2013, the defence formally requested that the judge order a medical examination for four of the defendants, but not for the complainant, who merely asserts that the authorities never agreed to undertake an investigation into the acts of torture that he allegedly suffered. The authorities reiterate that the complainant is motivated by purely political considerations and that his allegations of arbitrary arrest and torture are not supported by tangible evidence and have no other purpose than to enable the complainant to escape the prison term to which he has been sentenced. The State party therefore considers that the complainant’s allegations of violations of articles 1 and 12 to 16 of the Convention are unfounded. 9.4 On 4 December 2015, the State party submitted additional observations in which it maintained that the communication was inadmissible because the Committee had not been in a position to verify that all domestic remedies had been exhausted. In the absence of a complaint from the complainant on the torture allegations, in its decision of 21 May 2015 the Committee circumvented this requirement by focusing on the availability of effective avenues of redress for the complainant. 9.5 The State party draws attention to the nature and implications of the cassation appeal under way, and indicates that a new Code of Military Justice entered into force on 1 June 2015. The new Code gives the Court of Cassation the possibility of referring a case to a civil court (the Court of Appeal) should it decide to overturn the military court’s judgment. In that event, the Court would also be required to rule on the merits of the case. One of the issues raised by the defence team during the cassation appeal specifically relates to the allegations of torture. As the complainant appealed to the Court of Cassation, which constitutes an effective remedy, his complaint is not admissible. 9.6 On 20 February 2014, the complainant filed a criminal complaint in France, initiating criminal indemnification proceedings for torture before the chief investigating judge at the High Court of Paris. The State party adds that the Committee cannot legitimately pass judgment on the availability of domestic remedies when the complainant has instituted proceedings for torture in a country other than the State party. On this basis, the argument that the State party is obliged to open an investigation simply in response to the complainant’s allegations, without a formal complaint being filed, must be expressly rejected. Had the complainant filed his complaint with the Moroccan judicial authorities, as some of his co-defendants have done, the journalists present at his trial would not have failed to inform the public. His allegations of inaction on the part of the State party’s authorities are therefore unfounded. 9.7 Having regard to the entry into force of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between France and Morocco signed on 6 February 2015, the State party points out that the complaint filed by the complainant in Paris should be referred to the competent Moroccan judicial authority for a decision on how to proceed. A Moroccan court would thus be required to investigate the allegations of torture. The State party therefore reiterates that all domestic remedies have not been exhausted. Complainant’s comments on the merits 10.1 On 12 November 2015, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. He himself and his family are still suffering the legacy of torture. With regard to the challenge to the Committee’s decision to find the complaint admissible, he recalls that, according to the Committee, the State party failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. With regard to the appeal proceedings, he notes that, in his case, the Court of Cassation was not informed of the allegations of torture which the investigating judge chose not to refer to the military court for consideration. The complainant recalls that he was prosecuted for and convicted of murder. He adds that, along with his co-defendants, he ceaselessly denounced the acts of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment suffered and challenged the veracity of the confessions obtained as a result of torture both before the investigating judge and during the 10 GE.17-06158