to European case law,12 the complainant points out that the European Court and Commission call on States parties, in the case of allegations of torture or ill-treatment, to conduct an effective investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment and not to content themselves with citing the theoretical arsenal of options available to the victim to lodge a complaint. stranglehold over the freedom of movement of former prisoners. 9.12 Concerning the situation of his family, the complainant records the suffering caused by the police surveillance and various forms of intimidation. He mentions that two of his brothers (Nabil and Lofti) were imprisoned in advance of his arrest, and that his mother was detained for a whole day. In addition, according to the complainant, the authorities’ deliberate decision to move him far from his family affected the pattern of the visits. Consideration of the merits 10.1 The Committee has examined the complaint, by taking due account of all the information provided to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 9.13 Concerning the application of article 11 of the Convention, the complainant considers that the State party once again contents itself with a theoretical description of its legal arsenal and a reference to the activities of the Higher Committee on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, a non-independent institution. Citing documents issued by nongovernmental organizations,11 the complainant notes violations relating to the supervision of detention and police custody, such as manipulation of the dates when arrests were recorded, and incommunicado detention. He notes that the State party has not responded to his precise allegations relating to his detention for over a month in 1987, for 56 days in 1991 and for 18 days in 1995. 10.2 The Committee took note of the State party’s observations of 3 April 2003 challenging the admissibility of the complaint. It notes that the points raised by the State party are not such as to prompt reconsideration of the Committee’s decision on admissibility, notably owing to the lack of new or additional information from the State party on the matter of investigations voluntarily carried out by the State party (see para. 7.2). The Committee therefore does not consider that it should review its decision on admissibility. 10.3 The Committee therefore proceeds to examine the merits of the complaint, and notes that the complainant alleges violations by the State party of article 1, article 2, paragraph 1, article 4, article 5, article 11, article 12, article 13, article 14, article 15 and article 16 of the Convention. 9.14 In relation to the ENNAHDA movement, the complainant maintains that the organization is well known for its democratic ideals and its opposition to dictatorship and impunity, contrary to the State party’s explanations. In addition, he challenges the accusations of terrorism levelled by the State party, which in fact form part of a complete fabrication. 10.4 Article 12 of the Convention, the Committee notes that article 12 of the Convention places an obligation on the authorities to proceed automatically to a prompt and impartial investigation whenever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture or ill-treatment has been committed, no special importance being attached to the grounds for the suspicion.13 9.15 Lastly, according to the complainant, the State party is endeavouring to place the entire burden of proof on the victim, accusing him of inertia and failure to act, seeking protection behind a panoply of legal measures which theoretically enable victims to lodge complaints and evading its duty to ensure that those responsible for crimes, including that of torture, are automatically prosecuted. According to the complainant, the State party is thus knowingly ignoring the fact that international law and practice in relation to torture place greater emphasis on the role of States and their duties in order to enable proceedings to be completed. The complainant notes that the State party places the burden of proof on the victim alone, even though the supporting evidence, such as legal files, registers of police custody and visits, and so on, is in the sole hands of the State party and unavailable to the complainant. Referring 10.5 The Committee notes that the complainant maintains that he complained of acts of torture committed against him to the judge at his trials in 1992 and 1995. The complainant states that in 1992 he requested a medical examination, which was refused, and that in 1995 he sought the protection of the judge of the Tunis court of first instance against the torture inflicted on him daily at the prison. The Committee notes that the State party challenges the complainant’s claim that he was denied a medical examination, without commenting on the treatment of which the complainant complained to the judge or 12 Guide to Jurisprudence on Torture and Ill-Treatment – Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, Debra Long (APT); Ribitsch v. Austria; Assenov v. Bulgaria. 13 Communication N° 59/1996 (Encarnación Blanco Abad v. Spain). 11 Alternative report by FIDH to Tunisia’s second periodic report to the Committee against Torture; communiqué issued on 20 February 2003 by the International Association for Support for Political Prisoners in Tunisia. 131