CAT/C/52/D/372/2009 was no longer in the territory of the State party and could not reasonably return there without the risk of similar treatment. The Committee therefore believes that, in practice, no domestic remedy was accessible to the complainant, who was in an extremely vulnerable position and was unable to lodge this complaint with the Moroccan courts after being expelled from the country. It is the view of the Committee that, given the circumstances of the case, the requirement for the exhaustion of domestic remedies provided for in article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention does not preclude the Committee from finding the petition admissible.5 6.3 The Committee, finding no other reason to consider the communication inadmissible, thus proceeds to its consideration on the merits of the claims submitted by the complainant under article 16 of the Convention. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the complaint in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. The State party has partially confirmed the facts as submitted by the complainant, although confusion regarding dates and the number of migrants on board the intercepted boat means that it cannot be proven beyond doubt that the State party and the complainant are referring to the same boat and group of migrants. Given that the State party has not provided any observations on the treatment of the complainant while the decision to expel him to Mauritania was being implemented, due weight must be given to the complainant’s allegations. The Committee also refers to its concluding observations,6 adopted following consideration of the fourth periodic report submitted by the State party, in which it expressed its concern regarding information received that, in practice, “undocumented migrants [had] been escorted to the border or otherwise expelled in violation of Moroccan law without having been given the opportunity to exercise their rights. Several allegations have been made that hundreds of migrants have been abandoned in the desert without food or water.” The facts reported by the complainant are therefore not isolated. 7.2 The Committee notes that, according to the complainant, Moroccan gendarmes abandoned him and approximately 40 other undocumented migrants, some of whom were severely injured, in the border area separating Morocco and Mauritania without adequate equipment and with minimal supplies of food and water, and forced them to walk some 50 kilometres through an area containing anti-personnel mines in order to reach the first inhabited areas on the Mauritanian side. The Committee considers that the circumstances of the complainant’s expulsion by the State party constitute the infliction of severe physical and mental suffering on the complainant by public officials. They can therefore be considered cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as defined in article 16 of the Convention. 8. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concludes that the facts before it constitute a violation of article 16 of the Convention. 9. Pursuant to rule 118, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the Committee urges the State party to launch an impartial inquiry into the events in question for the purpose of prosecuting those persons responsible for the treatment inflicted on the complainant, and to take measures to provide the complainant with redress, including fair and adequate GE.14-07821 5 See communication No. 194/2001, I.S.D. v. France, decision adopted on 3 May 2005, para. 6.1. 6 CAT/C/MAR/CO/4, para. 26. 5