Committee’s admissibility decision complainant’s allegations and reiterates its position regarding admissibility. 7.1 At its twenty-ninth session, the Committee considered the admissibility of the complaint, and on 20 November 2002 declared it admissible. 8.2 In relation to the allegations concerning the State party’s “complicity” and inertia vis-à-vis “practices of torture”, the State party indicates that it has set up preventive2 and dissuasive3 machinery to combat torture so as to prevent any act which might violate the dignity and physical integrity of any individual. 7.2 With regard to the issue of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee noted that the State party challenged the admissibility of the complaint on the grounds that available and effective domestic remedies had not been exhausted. In the present case, the Committee noted that the State party had provided a detailed description both of the remedies available, under law, to any complainant and of cases where such remedies had been applied against those responsible for abuses and for violations of the law. The Committee considered, nevertheless, that the State party had not sufficiently demonstrated the relevance of its arguments to the specific circumstances of the case of this complainant, who claims to have suffered violations of his rights. It made clear that it did not doubt the information provided by the State party about members of the security forces being prosecuted and convicted for a variety of abuses. But the Committee pointed out that it could not lose sight of the fact that the case at issue dates from 1987 and that, given a statute of limitations of 10 years, the question arose in the present case of whether, failing interruption or suspension of the statute of limitations—a matter on which the State party had provided no information— action before the Tunisian courts would be disallowed. The Committee noted, moreover, that the complainant’s allegations related to facts that had already been reported publicly to the authorities. The Committee pointed out that to date it remained unaware of any investigations voluntarily undertaken by the State party. The Committee therefore considered it very unlikely in the present case that the complainant would obtain satisfaction by exhausting domestic remedies, and decided to proceed in accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention. 8.3 Concerning the allegations relating to the “practice of torture” and the “impunity of the perpetrators of torture”, the State party considers that the complainant has not presented any evidence to support his claims. It emphasizes that, contrary to the complainant’s allegations, Tunisia has taken all necessary legal and practical steps, in judicial and administrative bodies, to prevent the practice of torture and prosecute any offenders, in accordance with articles 4, 5 and 13 of the Convention. Equally, according to the State party, the complainant has offered no grounds for his inertia and failure to act to take advantage of the effective legal opportunities available to him to bring his case before the judicial and administrative authorities (see para. 6). Concerning the Committee’s decision on admissibility, the State party emphasizes that the complainant cites not only “incidents” dating back to 1987, but also “incidents” dating from 1995, 1996 and 1997, that is, a time when the Convention against Torture was fully incorporated into Tunisian domestic law and when he reports “ill-treatment” that he claims to have suffered while being held in “Tunis central prison” and “Grombalia prison”. Hence the statute of limitations has not expired, and the complainant should urgently act to interrupt the limitation period, either by contacting the judicial authorities directly, or by performing an act which has the effect of interrupting the limitation. The State party also mentions the scope for the complainant to lodge an appeal for compensation for any serious injury caused by a public official in the performance 7.3 The Committee noted, in addition, the argument by the State party to the effect that the complainant’s claim was tantamount to abuse of the right to lodge a complaint. The Committee considered that any report of torture was a serious matter and that only through consideration of the merits could it be determined whether or not the allegations were defamatory. Furthermore, the Committee believed that the complainant’s political and partisan commitment adduced by the State party did not impede consideration of this complaint, in accordance with the provisions of article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention. 2 This includes instruction in human rights values in training schools for the security forces, the Higher Institute of the Judiciary and the National School for training and retraining of staff and supervisors in prisons and correctional institutions; a human-rights-related code of conduct aimed at senior law enforcement officials; and the transfer of responsibility for prisons and correctional institutions from the Ministry of the Interior to the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights. 3 A legislative reference system has been set up: contrary to the complainant’s allegation that the Tunisian authorities have not criminalized acts of torture, the State party indicates that it has ratified the Convention against Torture without reservations, and that the Convention forms an integral part of Tunisian domestic law and may be invoked before the courts. The provisions of criminal law relating to torture are severe and precise (Criminal Code, art. 101 bis). State party’s merits observations 8.1 In its observations of 3 April 2003 and 25 September 2003, the State party challenges the 127