CAT/C/52/D/402/2009 7.2. The State party claims that, on 30 June 2005, the complainant was arrested again for alleged involvement in a case of possession of drugs and fraud. In his statement he admitted placing drugs in a car that did not belong to him but in which he was a passenger; the drugs were found by the gendarmes on 21 May 2005. Evidence of his involvement in fraud offences was discovered in a search of his house. Proceedings were then taken against the complainant by the Bir Mourad Raïs prosecutor’s office for fraud, false reporting of a crime and possession of drugs. On 21 June 2006 the Bir Mourad Raïs court acquitted him of the charges of false reporting of a crime and possession of drugs but found him guilty of fraud and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment. The sentence was upheld by the criminal division of the Algiers Court on 12 February 2007. 7.3. On 16 May 2010 the complainant filed a suit for damages with the chief investigating judge at the Bir Mourad Raïs court, against Bouguerra Soltani, the brother of the owner of the car where the drugs were found, who had implicated the complainant because of a dispute over a property sale. The complainant accused Bouguerra Soltani of abuse of power and using the apparatus of State for personal ends, to extract a confession from the complainant by torture, on the basis of which he was convicted. On 2 September 2010, the investigating judge rejected the suit on the grounds of non-payment of the surety required under the Code of Criminal Procedure when bringing suit for damages. 7.4. In the State party’s view, the complainant is implicated in numerous crimes and he is alleging torture in order to cover himself and avoid responsibility for the criminal acts he has been involved in. The State party argues that the communication is based on allegations with no basis in law. Additional information from the complainant 8.1. On 22 April 2014 the complainant submitted comments on the State party’s observations on the merits. He notes that the State party took a very long time to inform the Committee of the order of 2 September 2010 dismissing his complaint of torture. He notes that the failure to pay surety on bringing the action for damages in no way justifies the failure to investigate matters of such gravity. The facts had been brought to the attention of the State party authorities, who should have launched an effective and impartial enquiry ex officio. 8.2. The complainant notes that the State party’s reference to the proceedings against him has no bearing on the consideration of this communication, which concerns the torture he was subjected to in April 2001 and June 2005 and his various unlawful detentions. He also states that the State party simply denies that torture took place and gives no explanation in response to his allegations of torture, which he has substantiated in great detail in the communication. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 9.1 On 18 November 2013, at its fifty-first session, the Committee considered the admissibility of the complaint under article 22 of the Convention. It ascertained that the same matter had not been and was not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 9.2 The State party argues that the complainant has withdrawn his complaint and that, contrary to counsel’s assertions, it has in good faith attempted to establish whether he wished to proceed with it before the Committee. The Committee notes that, after having expressed a desire to withdraw his complaint against the State party on 15 December 2010, the complainant sent another letter to the Committee dated and signed 31 March 2011, GE.14-05037 11