CAT/C/47/D/368/2008 custody of the Civil Guard, which meant that the Civil Guard officers were responsible for protecting his life and ensuring his safety. • On 7 February 2008, Examining Court No. 1 of Ceuta reopened the inquiry and ordered that statements be taken from the three Civil Guard officers under suspicion, from a member of the Civil Guard as witness and from Mr. Lucerga (a member of CEAR/SUR), also as witness. The statements of the three Civil Guard officers under suspicion were taken on 15 April 2008; that of the member of the Civil Guard who served as witness was taken on 13 March 2008; and Mr. Lucerga’s statement on 13 May 2008. • On 9 May 2008, an attorney from CEAR/SUR appeared before Examining Court No. 1 and submitted a statement made by Mr. Dao Touré, a Senegalese national who was one of the four African migrants who attempted to swim across the border into Ceuta. Mr. Touré confirmed the version of the events given by the complainant. He said that at no time had they stated that they wished to seek asylum in Spain and that the guards did not speak to them in French, nor did they attempt to maintain any sort of communication with them. • On 14 May 2008, the CEAR/SUR attorney said that he had learned that Mr. Touré was going to be called as a witness to testify in court and requested that he be allowed to be present when Mr. Touré did so. On 15 May 2008, Examining Court No. 1 denied the attorney’s request on the grounds that he had no official status in the case. • On 23 May 2008, the Attorney General of Ceuta submitted a request in which he urged that the proceedings be referred to the National High Court, which he considered to be competent to hear the case, since the suspects were Spanish nationals and the events had occurred in a foreign territory. • On 27 May 2008, Examining Court No. 1 of Ceuta withdrew from the case and turned it over to the National High Court. • On 16 June 2008, Counsel for the State filed an application in which he opposed the reopening of the case, on the grounds that the further inquiries that had been undertaken had not furnished evidence of any circumstances other than those that had led to the dismissal of the proceedings on 28 September 2007. Counsel also contended that in no event would the central examining courts have jurisdiction over such cases on the grounds that the patrol boat constituted national territory. On 9 July 2008, Examining Court No. 1 of Ceuta reaffirmed its decision of 27 May 2008. • On 18 July 2008, Counsel for the State lodged an appeal, in which he argued that it was improper to reopen the case because the decision to dismiss the proceedings had become final and because no new evidence had been uncovered. On 30 September 2008, the Provincial High Court of Cádiz in Ceuta partially upheld the appeal, finding that the dismissal was not final because it had not been communicated to “persons who might be adversely affected”, as provided for by law. The Provincial High Court decided to set aside the decision to withdraw from the case, issued on 27 May 2008, until such time as the interested parties had been notified, which would give them the opportunity to appear in court as parties in the case and appeal against the dismissal. In its decision of 30 September 2008, the Provincial High Court notes that the records of the inquiry make reference to the existence of family members of the deceased and give the names of his parents, Malan and Fatou; they also state that the CEAR/SUR legal aid office had located a sister, a brother-in-law and a cousin. • On 5 January 2009, Examining Court No. 1 of Ceuta sent a notification to Mr. Jankoba Coly, a cousin of the victim. On 19 February 2009, Examining Court No. 1 GE.12-40869 7