CAT/C/59/D/606/2014 13.3 The Committee must also decide whether the fact that no investigation has been opened into the allegations of torture that the complainant submitted to the judicial authorities constitutes a violation by the State party of its obligations under article 12 of the Convention. The Committee takes note of the complainant’s claims that, on 12 November 2010, he appeared before the military investigating judge bearing visible signs of torture such as signs of beating and blood on his face (see paragraph 3.3), but that these facts were not mentioned in the minutes; that he subsequently denounced the torture explicitly before the investigating judge on 12 January and 12 August 2011; that the same allegations were raised before the military court in the presence of the prosecutor; and that at no point did the prosecutor launch an investigation. The Committee takes note of the complainant’s assertion that the cassation appeal cannot be considered an effective remedy because the Court of Cassation rules only on matters of law and on the basis of the case before it, namely the acts of which the complainant is accused. The Committee further notes the State party’s arguments that the complainant did not raise the allegations of torture with the competent authorities. It notes that, on 27 July 2016, the Court of Cassation adopted a decision on the appeal filed by the complainant and his co-defendants in February 2013, referring the case to the Rabat Court of Appeal which exercises civil jurisdiction. The Committee also notes the information provided by the State party on 4 November 2016 to the effect that the complainant’s case was entered in the register of the Court of Appeal for hearing on 26 December 2016. The Committee further notes that, according to information it has received, the purpose of the cassation appeal, which has now been in progress for more than three years, was to assess whether Moroccan law was applied correctly to this case and does not relate to the allegations of torture that are the subject of this complaint, which have not given rise to any investigation for nearly six years. Moreover, the information available does not make it possible to conclude that the Rabat Court of Appeal will have jurisdiction to rule on the allegations of torture made by the complainant, particularly since no instruction was given to the Court of Appeal to investigate the allegations of torture. The information presented to the Committee shows that the Court of Cassation referred the case to the Court of Appeal for the latter to give a new ruling, as the military court has not clearly demonstrated that the complainant had ordered or incited the perpetration of criminal acts by the person or persons concerned, or criminal intent on his part, elements which made the judgment subject to being declared null and void. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that it is unlikely that the Court of Appeal will be able to examine the allegations of torture. 13.4 The Committee further notes that no medical examination was requested by the military investigating judge even though the complainant bore clear signs of physical abuse, and that no investigation has been carried out in this regard. In addition, the military court did not take into account the complainant’s allegations about acts of torture when deciding on his conviction, and the State party denies that such allegations were raised during the proceedings. The Committee notes also that the State party far exceeded the reasonable length of time for dispensing justice in the complainant’s case: nearly six years elapsed between the events in question and the submission of the first allegations of torture, and no investigation was initiated. The cassation procedure did nothing to change this situation and the complainant is still being held in detention solely on the basis of his confession signed under duress. In the light of the above, the Committee considers that the failure to conduct any investigation into the allegations of torture made in the complainant’s case is incompatible with the State party’s obligations under article 12 of the Convention to ensure that the competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed. 13.5 In the circumstances, the State party has also failed to guarantee the right of the complainant to lodge a complaint in accordance with its responsibilities under article 13 of the Convention, which presupposes that the authorities provide a satisfactory response to such a complaint by launching a prompt and impartial investigation. 18 The Committee recalls that, pursuant to article 13 of the Convention, each State party shall take steps to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against any ill-treatment or 18 GE.17-06158 See communication No. 376/2009, Bendib v. Algeria, decision adopted on 8 November 2013, para. 6.6. See also Parot v. Spain, Abad v. Spain and Bouabdallah Ltaief v. Tunisia. 13