CAT/C/23/D/60/1996 page 13 convincing explanation as to why one of the beneficiaries has received the sum due to him, thereby unambiguously indicating that Mr. Marhoul has performed his proper function. 8.14 The State party takes issue with the Committee’s contention in its decision on admissibility that insufficient details were provided regarding the criminal proceedings that may be taken. The State party stresses that it has submitted detailed records of the proceedings and investigations conducted on two occasions by the competent examining magistrate. It is astonished to find that, in the Committee’s view, the remedy for alleged torture cannot be considered “effective” unless it results in a trial and subsequent conviction. If this were the case, investigative procedures - an indispensable component of criminal proceedings - would simply be a means to realize this end, whereas it is well established both in fact and in law that the examining magistrate must conduct his investigations with a view to indictment or acquittal. Comments by the author 9.1 The author recalls that in 1992 the Higher Committee for Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms transmitted a report to the President of the Republic in which it expressed the view that the death of Faisal Baraket had occurred in suspicious circumstances and that, in spite of the case being closed, new evidence had seemingly come to light which would warrant the opening of a new inquiry. The State party has not indicated what evidence led the official Government commission to form this view. 9.2 The author has transmitted to the Committee a copy of a letter dated 20 July 1994 which was sent to the President of the Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, a foreign non-governmental organization which has taken an interest in the case, via the Tunisian ambassador to France. The ambassador did not mention the road traffic accident hypothesis and placed the case in the context of promoting human rights and strengthening democratic structures in Tunisia. The author notes that the State party has not provided an explanation for this letter. 9.3 The State party claims to have reopened the Baraket case following the transmission of communication No. 14/1994, and to have summoned for questioning the witnesses named by the author. In fact, the police officers concerned have never been questioned or involved with the inquiry in any way, despite the fact that the author has indicated their name and rank. 9.4 With regard to the witness who the State party says has been bribed, the author claims that the witness is a wealthy businessman and asks where he could have found the money to offer a bribe, since he himself has no money to give. This same witness informed the author that, when he was questioned after the reopening of the case, he was detained for over a week and the police officers involved in the Faisal Baraket case were present during his detention. This is the witness whose wife was arrested in 1996.3 Finally, the general superintendent at Nabeul Hospital is unknown to the author and has never been named by him as a “witness”. 9.5 The author rejects the State party’s contention that there is no connection between the imprisonment of the wife of one of the witnesses and the case under consideration. The State party has not explained to the Committee why proceedings were instituted against the wife in question. It has also failed to explain why she has been transferred to a prison far away from her family, and why her counsel is prohibited from talking to her without the presence of witnesses.