Torture mentioned above. Lastly, citing extracts from reports by the Tunisian Committee for Human Rights and Freedoms and Amnesty International in particular, he draws attention to the immunity enjoyed by officials involved in acts of torture, some of whom have even been promoted. The complainant adds that Tunisia has helped Tunisian officials evade arrest warrants issued against them abroad on the basis of complaints by victims of torture 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 the 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 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 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. 5.10 Finally, the complainant rejects the comments by the State party characterizing his complaint as an abuse of rights. He says that, with its references in this context to political commitment and terrorism, the State party is demonstrating its bias and, by extension, the impossibility of obtaining any remedy in Tunisia. The complainant also stresses that the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment is a provision which admits of no exception, including for terrorists. He believes that, in its response to this complaint, the State party is resorting to a political manoeuvre which has no legal relevance and which constitutes an abuse of rights. Additional State party admissibility information 6. On 8 November 2002, the State party again challenged the admissibility of the complaint. It maintains that the complainant’s claims about recourse to the Tunisian justice system and the use of domestic remedies are baseless and unsupported by any evidence. It affirms that appeal procedures do not take an unreasonable time, and that proceedings in respect of the allegations made in the complaint are not time-barred, since the time limit for bringing proceedings in such cases is 10 years. Contrary to what the complainant alleges, the State party says that he can instruct a lawyer of his choice to lodge a complaint from abroad. It adds that the complainant’s claims that a complaint lodged from abroad with the Tunisian authorities might be covered by article 305, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which permits the prosecution of those guilty of terrorist acts, are baseless. The State party maintains that domestic remedies before the Tunisian judicial authorities are not only possible in the current case but indeed effective, as shown by the fact that victims of violations in Tunisia have obtained satisfaction. Fourth, the State party argues that the complainant is abusing the right to lodge complaints by seeking to misrepresent and distort the points made in the State party’s response of 4 December 2001. 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. 7.4 Lastly, the Committee ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. Committee’s admissibility decision 7.1 At its twenty-ninth session, the Committee considered the admissibility of the complaint, and on 20 November 2002 declared it admissible. 139