CAT/C/23/D/60/1996 page 10 Decision of the Committee on admissibility 7.1 The Committee considered the admissibility of the communication at its nineteenth session and by its decision of 17 November 1997 found it to be admissible. 7.2 The Committee referred to article 22, paragraph 1, of the Convention and to rule 107, paragraph 1 (b), of its rules of procedure, which allow a communication to be submitted on behalf of an alleged victim if the author can justify acting on his behalf. The Committee found that the author, having submitted a written authorization signed by the brother of the alleged victim, had duly established his right to represent the alleged victim’s family before the Committee. In this regard, the Committee noted that the State party had expressed doubts about the genuineness of the written authorization but had not presented sufficient evidence to conclude that the document signed by the alleged victim’s brother was a forgery. 7.3 Concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee found that the State party had not given sufficient details about the criminal proceedings that could be taken in order to establish whether the remedies would be effective. It noted that, although criminal proceedings had been initiated, the file had been closed. It also noted that the reports to the effect that the Tunisian courts had awarded damages to the family in compensation for the accident of which Faisal Baraket was a victim placed in doubt the existence of an effective remedy based on a complaint of torture. The Committee therefore found that it was not prevented from considering the communication by article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention. 7.4 The Committee had ascertained, as it was required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter had not been and was not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. State party’s observations on the merits of the communication 8.1 The State party regrets the Committee’s decision to find the communication admissible and notes the questionable nature of the arguments advanced to justify this decision. Faisal Baraket’s family consists of his mother and five brothers, including Jamel Baraket. As has already been observed, Faisal Baraket’s father, while he was still alive, refused to authorize the author of the communication to bring legal proceedings of any kind. The legal representation which is required in a matter as serious as alleged murder necessitates that authority to bring proceedings before the Committee should be granted by all of the alleged victim’s next of kin. An allegation made by one person out of eight is not sufficient to raise serious doubt about the cause of death. 8.2 Moreover, it appears that the Committee is prepared to admit that the author of the communication is not entitled to bring proceedings unless the Tunisian Government can prove that the power of attorney signed by the alleged victim’s brother is a forgery. Such a requirement is inconsistent with the smooth operation of an objective procedure designed exclusively to discover the truth on the basis of solid and corroborating evidence. In this instance, the Committee itself would seem to be in the best position to verify the authenticity of the documentation transmitted to it.