Decision; Subjects: MOROCCO, TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL TREATMENT; [CAT: UNO-Antifolterkonvention, Übereinkommen gegen Folter; Convention contre la torture; Convenzione contro la tortura]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.26-07111 (E) 050626 080626
Committee against Torture
Decision adopted by the Committee under article 22 of the
Convention, concerning communication No. 1134/2022*, **
Communication submitted by:
Abdelmoula El Hafidi (represented by counsel
from International Service for Human Rights)
Alleged victim:
The complainant
State Party:
Morocco
Date of complaint:
9 June 2022 (initial submission)
Document references:
Decision taken pursuant to rules 114 and 115 of
the Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted
to the State Party on 13 June 2022 (not issued in
document form)
Date of adoption of decision:
24 April 2026
Subject matter:
Conditions of detention
Procedural issues:
Exhaustion of domestic remedies; lack of
substantiation of claims
Substantive issues:
Torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment; a prompt and impartial
investigation; right to complain; right to a
remedy
Articles of the Convention:
1, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16
1.1
The complainant is Abdelmoula El Hafidi, a national of Morocco born in 1985. He
claims that the State Party has violated his rights under articles 1, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the
Convention. The State Party has made the declaration pursuant to article 22 (1) of the
Convention, effective from 19 October 2006. The complainant is represented by counsel.
1.2
On 13 June 2022, pursuant to rule 114 (1) of its rules of procedure and taking into
account the information provided by the complainant, the Committee, acting through its
Rapporteur on new complaints and interim measures, requested the State Party to take
effective measures to prevent any threat or act of violence to which the complainant or his
family might be exposed for having submitted the present complaint and to ensure that the
* Adopted by the Committee at its eighty-fourth session (13 April–1 May 2026).
** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication:
Jorge Contesse, Lorena González Pinto, Claude Heller, Erdogan Iscan, Peter Vedel Kessing, Liu
Huawen, Maeda Naoko, Moulaye Abdallah Moulaye Abdallah and Ana Racu. Pursuant to rule 109,
read in conjunction with rule 15, of the Committee’s rules of procedure, and paragraph 10 of the
guidelines on the independence and impartiality of members of the human rights treaty bodies (the
Addis Ababa guidelines), Abderrazak Rouwane did not participate in the examination of the
communication.
United Nations
CAT/C/84/D/1134/2022
Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment
Distr.: General
28 May 2026
English
Original: French
CAT/C/84/D/1134/2022
2
GE.26-07111
complainant is not subjected to reprisals, including acts torture or other forms of ill-treatment,
and that he has access to a lawyer of his choice while in detention.
The facts as submitted by the complainant
2.1
In the context of the Saharan independence movement and following a knife attack
on a Saharan student in December 2015, many Saharan students demonstrated on 23 January
2016 at a university campus in Marrakech, where the complainant was a student. During this
demonstration, a Moroccan student died. On 16 April 2016, the complainant was arrested by
plainclothes police officers in Boujdour, Western Sahara, allegedly without an arrest warrant
and without being informed of the reasons for his arrest.1 He was questioned about his
activism and his alleged links to Frente POLISARIO and human rights defenders.2 He was
then transferred to Agadir, where he was deprived of water, food and any contact with the
outside world for 48 hours. From 18 to 20 April 2016, the complainant was placed in police
custody with the authorization of the prosecutor’s office, before being brought before an
investigating judge, who ordered his detention.3
2.2
After his arrest on 16 April 2016, the complainant was assaulted and threatened with
rape4 in order to force him to sign a confession and police documents that he was not able to
read beforehand. During the first eight days of his detention, he was questioned only at night
and was tortured5 in a locked room, with no other detainees present to witness this treatment.
Furthermore, when he was transferred to Oudaya prison in Marrakech, on an unspecified
date, he was tortured while handcuffed in front of prison staff as soon as he entered the
prison.6
2.3
The acts of torture that the complainant endured had a severe impact on his mental
and physical health. He became extremely nervous and emotional. He also suffers from
thyroid problems and breathing difficulties. After the first six months of torture,7 he began to
suffer from back pain so severe that he became unable to sit for long periods. He also suffers
from pain in his thigh, which the low temperatures in winter exacerbate. His physical pain is
particularly severe at night. In her testimony, one of his sisters stated that she had noticed
significant injuries, particularly to his right eye, as well as blood around his ear. To date, no
photographs have been taken attesting to the torture endured by the complainant, mainly
because of the difficulty of visiting him.
2.4
On 20 April 2016, the complainant, accompanied by his lawyer, reported the acts of
torture before the investigating judge. No investigation was initiated. Subsequently, the
complainant asked his lawyer to write to the court about the acts of torture. However, rather
than being summoned before the Court of Cassation, he merely received a response from
the prison administration more than three years later.8
1 According to the State Party, the complainant was arrested by the police following the publication of
a wanted notice, dated 28 January 2016, for his involvement in the events of 23 January 2016.
2 The complainant was an active member of the Boujdour Press media committee, worked with the
Ligue pour la protection des droits de l’homme (League for the Protection of Human Rights) and was
a member of the executive board of the Association sahraouie pour la défense des droits humains
(Sahrawi Association for the Defence of Human Rights).
3 According to the complainant, before the judge ordered his detention, he was held incommunicado for
four days.
4 No further details provided.
5 No further details provided.
6 No further details provided. According to the written testimony of a fellow detainee who met the
complainant between 22 and 24 April 2016, the latter “could barely stand”.
7 No further details provided.
8 None of the documents mentioned in this paragraph were provided by the complainant.
CAT/C/84/D/1134/2022
GE.26-07111
3
2.5
On 6 July 2017, the complainant was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment by the
Marrakech criminal chamber of first instance for organizing and inciting a clash involving
the use of weapons and premeditated violence, resulting in death without intent to kill. The
judgment was upheld on appeal on 10 April 2018 and by the Court of Cassation on 17 April
2019.9
2.6
The conditions in which the complainant was held and the acts of torture and multiple
deprivations that he endured, such as the deprivation of his right to study, led him, in 2018,
to stage a number of hunger strikes to protest against these acts, in the hope that his conditions
of detention would improve. As a result, his health is now of great concern, as he suffers from
digestive pain and pain in his left eye. On 14 February 2018, his sister B. filed a complaint
about this with the prosecutor.10 According to the complainant, the last time that a doctor
visited him was in 2018, outside the prison. He has never been able to see a doctor inside the
prison itself.11 The prosecutor, however, did not carry out any investigation into his claims.
2.7
On 29 March 2019, the complainant’s sister F. filed a new complaint with the
prosecutor claiming that the complainant was suffering from malnutrition due to deprivation
of food and drink.12 On 17 December 2019, a third complaint was filed with the prosecutor
by the complainant’s sister F. claiming abuse and ill-treatment, including humiliating
searches and humiliating practices – for example, the complainant’s personal belongings
were thrown on the floor, he was prohibited from cooking his own food and he was attacked
under the supervision of the section head.13 Lastly, on 11 August 2020 the complainant’s
sister K. filed a complaint with the prosecutor of the Laayoune court of appeal against the
head of the first administrative area in Boujdour.14 She claimed that, during a meeting with
the head of the arrondissement to obtain documents concerning the complainant, the former
had blackmailed and threatened her, addressing her in insulting and disrespectful terms.
2.8
In March 2022, the complainant was transferred several times, in humiliating
conditions,15 from Aït Melloul prison to Lakhal prison in Laayoune, then to Es-Smara and
Bouizakarne prisons, before finally being returned to Aït Melloul prison. There, he was held
in appalling conditions related to the overcrowding (he shared his cell with ordinary prisoners
considered highly dangerous) and the very poor hygiene conditions (prisoners smoked even
inside the cell). He was held in a cell containing 40 prisoners, with only three toilets and no
drinking water. The cells had no windows, and the inmates had access to natural light only
during 30-minute or one-hour daily exercise periods. The temperature inside the cells
fluctuated with the weather. Lastly, during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic,
the authorities did not comply with the standards on the prevention of the spread of the virus.16
2.9
The complainant has been placed in solitary confinement for more than 22 hours a
day on numerous occasions, sometimes without justification or on trivial grounds (for
example, for having hidden a telephone in his cell or for having protested against his poor
conditions of detention and having demanded his rights). The conditions in solitary
confinement were similar to those of his detention. For example, during a period of solitary
confinement in November 2017, he had no access to food and was locked up for four days in
a small, very cold room without blankets or electricity. Then, he was placed in solitary
confinement again on 8 March 2019, for 45 days, on account of the complaint for
malnutrition filed by his sister.17
2.10
Contact with his family has always been especially complicated: in some of the
prisons in which he was held, he was able to exercise only with great difficulty his right to
9 The complainant has not provided the judgments. According to the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention, the complainant’s deprivation of liberty is arbitrary (A/HRC/WGAD/2019/67, para. 77).
10 On file.
11 In its observations of 19 May 2023, the State Party mentions several dates on which the complainant
had medical consultations between the date of his admission to prison and 27 March 2023.
12 On file.
13 On file.
14 On file.
15 No further details provided.
16 No further details provided.
17 The complaint filed by his sister F., however, is dated 29 March 2019.
CAT/C/84/D/1134/2022
4
GE.26-07111
communicate with his relatives and his right to receive visits. He was allowed to speak to his
family just twice a week and, even then, for such a short time that it was impossible to begin
a real conversation or express his needs. The guards often made a lot of noise while he was
on the telephone or stood near him and his family during the short five-minute visits,
preventing him from communicating in peace with his loved ones. Furthermore, persons
authorized to visit or contact the complainant needed to first be approved by the prison
administration. However, according to the complainant, his lawyer has never received such
approval.
The complaint
3.1
The complainant submits that his treatment during his arrest and during his six years
in detention constitutes a violation of articles 1, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Convention.
3.2
First, the complainant considers that all the acts to which he has been subjected since
his arrest, in particular the violence, humiliation and harassment inflicted by police officers
or prison guards with the aim of obtaining a confession or because of his Saharan identity,
constitute acts of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention.
3.3
Despite the findings by the Committee, several Special Rapporteurs and the Working
Group on Arbitrary Detention of systematic use of force and torture against Saharans18 and
the clear signs of torture borne by the complainant,19 Moroccan judges have not addressed
these issues and have not responded to the allegations made by the complainant over the past
five years. This constitutes a failure by the State Party to fulfil its obligation to proceed to a
prompt and impartial investigation whenever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act
of torture has been committed, in violation of article 12 of the Convention.
3.4
Numerous complaints of a lack of healthcare, malnutrition, ill-treatment and abuse of
power have been lodged, but the competent authorities have carried out no prompt and
impartial investigation. The complaint lodged by the complainant’s sister K. concerning
threats made against her by the head of the first administrative area demonstrates a failure by
the State Party to fulfil its obligation to take steps to protect the complainant and witnesses
against all ill-treatment or intimidation tied to the reporting of acts of torture. The State Party
thus violated article 13 of the Convention.
3.5
In the absence of an investigation, the complainant has been deprived of the possibility
of exercising his right to redress. The State Party has thus also violated article 14 of the
Convention.
3.6
The complainant was subjected to acts of torture, in particular, during his interrogation
to make him sign a confession that he did not know the content of and without his lawyer
present. The complainant’s convictions, however, are based solely on this confession, which
constitutes evidence obtained under duress since the complainant was forced to sign the
police document without his lawyer present. Indeed, the complainant was able to consult a
lawyer neither at the time of his arrest nor when he signed his confession, but only after
proceedings had been instituted. The State Party has thus failed to fulfil its obligation under
article 15 of the Convention to verify that statements included in proceedings were not made
as a result of torture.
3.7
Lastly, the complainant’s conditions of detention since his arrest – namely, the
appalling sanitary conditions, the overcrowding, the lack of access to drinking water, the
difficulties in obtaining or denial of access to medical examinations, the restrictions on his
right to visits, the increasing use of prolonged solitary confinement and the situations of
18 Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention and Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion
and expression (AL MAR 5/2019), 8 November 2019; Special Rapporteur on the situation of human
rights defenders, Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and
protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and Special Rapporteur on torture and
other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (AL MAR 5/2020), 7 January 2021;
A/HRC/WGAD/2019/67, para. 33; A/HRC/WGAD/2016/27, paras. 14 and 15; and
A/HRC/27/48/Add.5.
19 No further details provided.
CAT/C/84/D/1134/2022
GE.26-07111
5
insecurity and harassment suffered by the complainant – represent a violation by the State
Party of article 16 of the Convention, notwithstanding the recognition by the Working Group
on Arbitrary Detention in 2019 that the complainant’s deprivation of liberty was arbitrary.
State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 13 December 2022, the State Party submitted its observations. First, it challenges
the admissibility of the complaint, which it considers an abuse of the right of submission
since almost six years have passed since the alleged events,20 and questions the reasons for
such a delay. It is also of the view that the very content of the complaint and the nature of
most of the documents in the file are indicative of a wish on the part of the complainant to
report on a general situation by means of vague and ultimately unfounded general allegations,
thereby revealing purely political motivations.
4.2
On the merits, the State Party asserts that, when he was arrested by the Marrakech
police, the complainant – contrary to his allegations – was informed of the accusations against
him and of all his rights, including his right to remain silent and to appoint a lawyer. However,
the complainant did not attempt to exercise his rights and did not initially express a wish to
contact his lawyer. Furthermore, the allegations of due process violations were not raised by
his lawyers, either before the court of first instance or on appeal.
4.3
With regard to the allegation that the complainant was arrested without a warrant, held
incommunicado before being brought before the investigating judge and deprived of food
and contact with the outside world for 48 hours, the State Party clarifies that there was indeed
a warrant against the complainant, pursuant to which he was arrested by the Boujdour police
before being taken to the investigating authorities in Marrakech. His family was informed of
his arrest, as noted in the police report.21 Contrary to what is alleged, the complainant was
able to rest and enjoy the meals provided to persons in police custody. Furthermore, his health
was completely normal.
4.4
Regarding the allegation that the court based its decision on a confession obtained
through torture, it should be noted that the prosecution and conviction of the complainant
were the result of his involvement in criminal acts punishable under criminal law and that his
participation in the bloody events, including in organizing and inciting them, was proved. In
that regard, the court convicted the complainant on the basis of his detailed statements.
4.5
The State Party considers the complainant’s allegations of ill-treatment at Oudaya
prison to be completely unfounded. Furthermore, the complainant was able to continue his
school and university education during his incarceration,22 which completely contradicts the
claims concerning his right to pursue his studies. With regard to his diet, the complainant
received three meals a day, like all prisoners. However, he went on multiple hunger strikes
to demand privileges contrary to the law, such as not being searched, receiving visits from
people who were not family members or receiving visits in private.
4.6
The State Party states that, in Aït Melloul prison, where he has been incarcerated since
16 July 2018, the complainant enjoys all his rights under the law. He is currently held with
39 other inmates in a cell designed for 40, which is equipped with a television and meets the
required standards. The complainant has never been placed in solitary confinement.
4.7
With regard to his telephone communications, it should be noted that the complainant
– contrary to his allegations – actually has direct access to a landline telephone located within
his cell. He sees his family whenever they come to visit, and the prison administration has
never denied him visits. Likewise, he has never been prevented from seeing his lawyer, but
no lawyer has asked to meet with him.
4.8
Regarding the complainant’s placement in solitary confinement, the State Party
clarifies that this is a disciplinary measure imposed in accordance with the law by the prison
director in response to a disciplinary offence. Thus, on 12 March 2019, the complainant
attempted to incite all inmates to take part in a general protest movement. After 16 days, the
20 Gobin v. Mauritius (CCPR/C/72/D/787/1997), para. 6.3.
21 His father was informed by telephone.
22 The State Party indicates the various degrees obtained by the complainant.
CAT/C/84/D/1134/2022
6
GE.26-07111
disciplinary measure was lifted so that the complainant could sit his examinations.
Furthermore, contrary to his claims, the complainant did not go on hunger strike following
his solitary confinement, which took place in accordance with the relevant provisions.
4.9
The State Party indicates that the complaint filed by the complainant’s sister B.
concerning the complainant’s ill-treatment was forwarded to the prosecutor, but, owing to
the lack of information concerning the persons accused of committing the acts alleged, was
dismissed on 24 June 2019. The complainant’s sister was notified of this decision.
4.10
The complaint filed by the complainant’s sister K. against the head of the first
administrative area in Boujdour was forwarded to the criminal investigation police, who
interviewed the sister. In addition, the head of the administrative area prepared a report in
which he denied her claims. After the complaint was reviewed, it was decided to dismiss it
on 9 June 2021 owing to lack of evidence. The complainant’s sister was notified of this
decision.
4.11
Concerning the complaint filed by the complainant’s sister F., the director of Aït
Melloul prison noted in a report that the allegations were unfounded, that the complainant
had never been ill-treated and enjoyed all his rights like all other prisoners and that the
complaint had been filed in an attempt to ensure that he would not be punished for having,
in particular, tried to mobilize other prisoners to take part in a general protest movement.
After reviewing the complaint and the prison director’s response, the Crown Prosecutor
General decided to dismiss the case owing to lack of evidence.
4.12
Lastly, the State Party describes the measures taken to combat the spread of
COVID-19 in prisons. As for the complainant’s state of health, the State Party asserts that he
has not been diagnosed with any chronic illness. Since 9 November 2018, the complainant
has had 20 medical consultations for common symptoms and one dental consultation.
Currently, his general state of health is good.
Complainant’s comments on the State Party’s observations
5.1
In his comments of 7 February 2023, the complainant observes that the State Party
does not deny that he suffered ill-treatment or that information was obtained under torture,
but rather attempts to justify these facts by highlighting the reason for his conviction. As for
the claim of abuse of the right of submission, the complainant emphasizes that his complaint
concerns not only the violations that occurred in 2016 and during his arrest, but also those
that have continued since then, such as those relating to his conditions of detention and those
reported in the complaints filed by his sisters, which the Moroccan courts failed to take into
account. Furthermore, while the final decision of the Court of Cassation confirming the
complainant’s sentence is dated 17 April 2019, it was only notified to him in March 2021, at
which point he took steps to bring the matter before the Committee.
5.2
The complainant stresses that the State Party has not responded to the allegation
concerning his incommunicado detention for four days, mentioning only that he was held in
police custody from 18 to 20 April 2016, even though his arrest had taken place on 16 April
2016. Moreover, the complainant’s family was not informed of his arrest, and he was not
informed that he could contact a lawyer when he was arrested.
5.3
The complainant notes that the State Party has made no mention of his state of health
when he was admitted to prison, even though witnesses state that he “could barely stand”
when he first met a fellow inmate. The complainant alleges that he has also regularly been
subjected to ill-treatment by prison guards.23
5.4
The complainant asserts that the State Party has not responded to the allegations of
ill-treatment and acts of torture suffered during his arrest and, subsequently, during his
detention. He insists that none of his hunger strikes was intended to obtain for him privileges
contrary to the law, as claimed by the State Party.
5.5
With regard to the conditions of detention at Aït Melloul prison, the complainant
submits that a lack of overcrowding, as claimed by the State Party, is no guarantee of good
23 No further details provided.
CAT/C/84/D/1134/2022
GE.26-07111
7
conditions of detention. As indicated in his complaint, he is living in appalling conditions.
The other prisoners smoke inside the cell, there are only three toilets for the 40 inmates who
occupy the cell, there is no access to drinking water, and the cell has no windows and no
insulation, meaning that the temperature inside fluctuates with the weather. The testimony of
the complainant’s fellow inmates confirms these statements. The conditions of detention thus
constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of article 16 of the
Convention.
5.6
The complainant notes that the State Party asserts that he was never placed in solitary
confinement but then contradicts itself by referring to the reasons for which the measure was
imposed. Contrary to what is claimed, the complainant was placed in solitary confinement
after filing a complaint about the poor quality of the food he was being given, not as a result
of a disciplinary offence. In response to this punishment, he went on a hunger strike from
23 August to 5 September 2019.
5.7
With regard to the complaints filed by his three sisters, the complainant asserts that
his family was informed only once, in 2017, that one of the complaints had been dismissed
without further action because of the lack of information concerning those responsible for
the acts alleged. The dismissal of complaints concerning such serious allegations owing to a
lack of evidence demonstrates the difficulty for the complainant of reporting the violations
that he and his family are suffering.
5.8
Lastly, regarding his state of health, the complainant relates that he has been denied
access to medical consultations on several occasions, notably because of his refusal to don
the uniform that criminals must wear, given his status as a political prisoner. In addition,
owing to a lack of specialized equipment, the consultation he needed turned out to be just a
routine examination.24 Today, his health is far from good, as claimed by the State Party. The
complainant suffers from pain in his large intestine and stomach and vision problems. None
of these health conditions has been specifically examined or appropriately treated.
State Party’s additional observations
6.1
On 19 May 2023, the State Party pointed out that the documents in the file do not state
that the complainant has exhausted available domestic remedies with regard to his allegations
of ill-treatment and acts of torture allegedly suffered while in police custody. It should be
noted that the complainant has not taken any steps to that end before any judicial authority
or even before other national human rights mechanisms, whether at local or national level.
Furthermore, the complaints filed by the complainant’s family concerning his conditions of
detention were thoroughly investigated by the competent authorities and were dismissed
following their review; the complainant’s family was informed of the decision taken in every
case without exception.25
6.2
The complainant’s allegation that he was not informed of the decision of the Court of
Cassation of 17 April 2019 until 2021 is completely unfounded. Indeed, the First Advocate
General at the Court of Cassation confirmed that, on 18 April 2019, the complainant had been
notified of this decision through the General Delegation for Prison Administration and
Reintegration.26
6.3
With regard to the allegation that the complainant was questioned about his political
opinions rather than the facts giving rise to his detention, the record of the interview prepared
by the criminal investigation police demonstrates that, after being informed of his rights and
the reason for his arrest, the complainant admitted the facts alleged. Regarding the allegation
that the complainant was detained incommunicado for four days, the State Party points out
that he was the subject of a nationwide wanted notice and that, after his arrest by the Boujdour
police, he was transferred to Marrakech and held in police custody from 9 p.m. on 18 April
2016 until 9 a.m. on 20 April 2016 and that, on the same day, he was brought before the
public prosecutor at the Marrakech court of appeal. According to the report of 20 April 2016
24 No further details provided.
25 The State Party has provided the decisions to dismiss the complaints of 29 March 2019 and 10 August
2020.
26 The State Party has provided a copy of the notification.
CAT/C/84/D/1134/2022
8
GE.26-07111
prepared by the criminal investigation police, the complainant’s family, in the person of his
father, was informed of his detention in police custody, in accordance with article 67 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. The complainant did not express a desire to exercise his legal
rights and, according to the record of the interview, stated that he did not wish to contact a
lawyer during the investigation.
6.4
Concerning the allegations that the State Party does not deny that the complainant was
subjected to ill-treatment, that information was obtained under torture or that the Moroccan
authorities did not mention in their response the complainant’s state of health on his
admission to prison, the State Party reiterates that, on the contrary, the complainant’s arrest
took place in accordance with the law and under the effective and direct supervision of the
competent prosecutor’s office. The complainant was arrested pursuant to a wanted notice,
and all his rights – such as the right to remain silent, to appoint a lawyer, to receive legal
assistance and to contact his family – were respected, both during his arrest and when he was
questioned, as set down in the procedural documents. The complainant duly signed the record
of arrest and the interview record, including the parts referring to his placement in police
custody, without any pressure having been exerted on him. Moreover, he was not subjected
to any ill-treatment, either during his period in police custody or during his pretrial detention.
The allegations made in this regard are intended to divert attention from his proven
involvement in the murder of a student.
6.5
With regard to the allegations concerning the conditions of detention, the State Party
wonders on what evidence the complainant’s counsel bases the assertion that the complainant
suffered ill-treatment at the local prison in Oudaya and again reiterates that, since he was
incarcerated and in every prison where he has been held, the complainant has always been
treated in accordance with international standards for the protection of prisoners’ rights and
that his allegations are completely without foundation. The State Party maintains its position
regarding the complainant’s conditions of detention in Aït Melloul, where he enjoys a
balanced diet, has access to drinking water and medical care, may receive visits, has access
to a landline telephone, has a daily walk during which he does physical exercise, may
purchase items at the prison store and shares with 39 other inmates a cell designed for 40,
which is equipped with a television and meets the required standards. Counsel relies on the
statements of the complainant’s fellow inmates, which, under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, can in no way be considered conclusive evidence. Furthermore, the account in
question is that of a fellow inmate convicted in the same case as the complainant.
6.6
The State Party expresses surprise at the allegations of malnutrition, given that the
provision of food to inmates in Moroccan prisons is delegated to companies specializing in
mass catering, which prepare meals that are balanced in terms of quantity and quality, in
accordance with international standards. With regard to the allegation of lack of access to
drinking water, the State Party informs the Committee that prisons in the Kingdom of
Morocco are authorized to receive inmates only after a central commission composed of
several specialists from various departments has given its approval for the opening of a prison
facility. To receive such approval, the prison must be connected to the drinking water supply
system of the National Office for Electricity and Potable Water.
6.7
As for the complainant’s alleged placement in “solitary confinement”, the State Party
considers that counsel is conflating certain terms and attempting to play with words. When
the State Party stated that “the complainant has never been placed in solitary confinement”,
it was using the term “solitary confinement” (isolement) with the meaning given to it by
counsel in the complaint – in other words, the complainant had never been subjected to a
regime of solitary confinement and had never been deprived of all contact with others. The
State Party wished to point out that the “solitary confinement” in which the complainant had
been placed was a disciplinary measure imposed by the prison director in accordance with
the law as the result of a disciplinary offence; the criteria for imposing the measure and for
its application are strictly regulated by law.
CAT/C/84/D/1134/2022
GE.26-07111
9
6.8
Lastly, the State Party refers to the complainant’s medical consultations since his
admission to prison 27 and concludes that he is in good general health. It informs the
Committee that the complainant, consistent with his pattern of unlawful behaviour, instigated
collective protests at the local prison in Aït Melloul and was transferred to the local prison in
Safi on 23 March 2023. He underwent a medical examination upon admission to this facility
and was found to be in good general health.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Consideration of admissibility
7.1
Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must
decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has
ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (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.
7.2
The Committee notes the State Party’s contention that the complaint is inadmissible
because it constitutes an abuse of the right of submission and because domestic remedies
have not been exhausted. The Committee recalls that neither the Convention nor its rules of
procedure establishes a time limit for submitting a complaint. The Committee observes that,
in any event, the complaint concerns not only the acts of torture and ill-treatment suffered by
the complainant during his arrest and detention in 2016, but also the conditions of his
detention at the time that the complaint was submitted to the Committee; thus, it does not
constitute an abuse of the right of submission.
7.3
The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it
should not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the
individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. It notes that, in the present case,
the State Party disputes whether the complainant has exhausted all available domestic
remedies, pointing out that he has not taken any steps vis-à-vis the judicial authorities to
report the acts of torture and ill-treatment suffered while in police custody. The Committee
also notes the complainant’s allegation that, in the presence of his lawyer, he reported the
acts of torture when he was first brought before the investigating judge on 20 April 2016 and
that he then asked his lawyer to “write to the court” about the same acts. However, the
complainant has not provided any supporting documentary evidence. Nor has he provided
the judgments at first instance, on appeal and in cassation to enable the Committee to assess
whether mention was made in them of allegations of torture or ill-treatment raised by the
complainant or his counsel, including with respect to the extraction of a confession under
torture, or whether the complainant had challenged the interview record and the probative
value of the confession signed under torture. Consequently, the Committee concludes,
pursuant to article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, with regard to the complaints raised under
articles 1, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 of the Convention, that the complainant has not demonstrated
that domestic remedies have been exhausted with respect to the alleged torture and ill-
treatment he suffered after his arrest, including the extraction of a confession under torture.
7.4
Furthermore, the Committee observes that the complainant alleges – under articles 1,
15 and 16 of the Convention – acts of torture and ill-treatment following his arrest and the
extraction of a confession under torture but has not substantiated these allegations in any
way. In rather general terms, he has cited “acts of violence, humiliation or harassment
committed by police officers or prison guards with the aim of obtaining a confession or
because of his Saharan identity”. However, the complainant has not provided any details
about the acts of torture or ill-treatment suffered or the State officials who allegedly inflicted
them or made any mention of the exact date of the abuse or the place where it is supposed to
have taken place.28 The Committee therefore considers that, independently of the failure to
27 In particular, an abdominal ultrasound and a specialist ophthalmology consultation were requested,
but the complainant refused to go to hospital, on 19 September 2016, 19 April 2017 and 1 November
2017.
28 M.A. and M.N. v. Sweden (CAT/C/55/D/566/2013), para. 8.6; and S.S. v. Canada
(CAT/C/59/D/581/2014), para. 7.6.
CAT/C/84/D/1134/2022
10
GE.26-07111
demonstrate that domestic remedies have been exhausted, the complainant has not
sufficiently substantiated, for the purposes of admissibility, his allegations of torture and ill-
treatment suffered following his arrest and for the purpose of extracting a confession from
him.
7.5
The Committee notes that, while the complainant claims that no action was taken on
the various complaints filed on his behalf by his sisters, which would be contrary to article 13
of the Convention, the State Party explains that the authorities did examine all these
complaints and decided to dismiss them, while informing the complainant’s family of these
decisions, even though the complainant states that his family was informed only of the
dismissal of the complaint filed by his sister B. Even if the other dismissal decisions were
not communicated to the complainant’s family, the Committee considers that it was
incumbent on the family to take the necessary steps to follow up on their complaints. In this
regard, the Committee takes note of the State Party’s statement that the complainant’s sister
K. was interviewed following the filing of her complaint, a fact not contested by the
complainant. Accordingly, the Committee is of the view that the complainant has failed to
substantiate his claims under article 13 of the Convention for the purposes of admissibility.
7.6
The Committee notes that the complainant alleges that his lawyer was never granted
authorization to visit him in prison, whereas the State Party claims that he was never
prevented from receiving visits from his lawyer. The complainant has not, however, provided
any evidence of a request made by his lawyer to visit him or of a refusal by the Moroccan
authorities. The Committee also notes, on the one hand, the complainant’s allegation that he
was placed in solitary confinement “sometimes without justification” and, on the other, the
State Party’s explanation that this was in fact a disciplinary measure imposed as the result of
disciplinary offences committed by the complainant, as provided for by law. Lastly, the
Committee notes the complainant’s allegation of difficulties obtaining or denial of access to
medical examinations, but it observes that he does not contest the list of medical consultations
provided by the State Party or his own refusal to undergo some medical examinations. In the
absence of any further explanation, the Committee finds that the complainant has failed to
substantiate these claims sufficiently for the purposes of admissibility.
7.7
However, the Committee is of the view that, for the purposes of admissibility, the
complainant has provided sufficient information regarding the conditions of detention. It
therefore considers his claim under article 16, read alone and in conjunction with articles 12
and 13 of the Convention, to be admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits.
Consideration of the merits
8.1
The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information
made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention.
8.2
The Committee notes the complainant’s allegation that he was held in insanitary and
overcrowded conditions at Aït Melloul prison, where he shared with 39 other inmates a cell
that had only three toilets and inside which the other prisoners smoked. According to the
complainant, the cell had no windows and was not insulated, and there was no access to
drinking water. The Committee also notes the State Party’s position that the cell was designed
to accommodate 40 people and “[met] the required standards”. The State Party disputes the
allegation that there was no access to drinking water and informs the Committee that no
prison in the State Party is authorized to receive inmates without first being connected to the
drinking water supply system.
8.3
The Committee recalls that deprivation of liberty necessarily entails certain
disadvantages for prisoners but must not deprive them of the protection against degrading
treatment afforded by article 16 of the Convention. States Parties must ensure that conditions
of detention are compatible with respect for human dignity.
8.4
In the present case, the Committee notes that, while the State Party asserts that the cell
in which the complainant was held in Aït Melloul prison was designed for 40 people, it has
not provided any evidence to support this claim. The State Party does not specify the exact
dimensions of the cell, information that would have allowed the Committee to assess whether
the personal space accorded to the complainant was in line with acceptable standards in this
regard. The State Party has not provided any evidence to show that the complainant did in
CAT/C/84/D/1134/2022
GE.26-07111
11
fact have access to drinking water in his cell. The Committee notes with concern that, even
though the complainant has repeatedly alleged that other prisoners smoked inside the cell,
which has not been disputed by the State Party, that there was no access to natural light and
air because of the lack of a window and that the cell was not heated, the State Party has not
provided any evidence to the contrary, such as photographs of the complainant’s cell, but
merely asserts that the cell “[met] the required standards”. The Committee takes note of the
State Party’s confirmation that the 40 inmates occupying the cell had only three toilets at
their disposal. Consequently, the Committee considers that the State Party has not provided
sufficient information to effectively refute the complainant’s detailed allegations concerning
his material conditions of detention. Furthermore, it emphasizes that the cumulative effect of
these conditions, combined with the prolonged duration of the detention, has worsened the
complainant’s situation and has had a significant impact on his physical and psychological
well-being.
8.5
Lastly, the Committee considers that the State Party’s very general statement that the
complainant’s conditions of detention met the required standards and the absence of any
information or evidence in that regard suggest that the State Party has not conducted an
impartial investigation into the allegations of degrading treatment made under article 16, read
in conjunction with article 12 of the Convention, even assuming that the transmission of this
communication to the State Party on 13 June 2022 was the first opportunity for it to gain
cognizance of the complainant’s allegations regarding his conditions of detention.
8.6
In these circumstances, the State Party has also failed to meet its obligation under
article 13 of the Convention to ensure the right of the complainant to lodge a complaint,
which implies that the authorities must provide a satisfactory response to such a complaint
by launching a prompt and impartial investigation. The Committee notes that article 13, if
read in conjunction with article 16 of the Convention, does not require the formal lodging of
a complaint of other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under the
procedure laid down in domestic law, nor does it require an express statement of intention to
bring a criminal case; it is enough for the victim simply to come forward and bring the facts
to the attention of an authority of the State for the latter to be obliged to consider this a tacit
but unequivocal expression of the victim’s wish to have a prompt and impartial investigation
initiated, as prescribed by this article of the Convention. Furthermore, the State Party does
not specify whether the complainant had access, both in theory and in practice, to a remedy
to complain about the conditions of detention. The Committee concludes that the facts of the
case also constitute a violation of article 13, read in conjunction with article 16 of the
Convention.
8.7
In the light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the conditions of detention
of the complainant in Aït Melloul prison, taken as a whole, constitute degrading treatment,
in violation of article 16, read alone and in conjunction with articles 12 and 13 of the
Convention.29
9.
The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the facts
before it reveal a violation by the State Party of article 16, read alone and in conjunction with
articles 12 and 13 of the Convention.
10.
The Committee urges the State Party to: (a) provide the complainant with
comprehensive reparation, including compensation for material and non-material harm,
restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition; (b) refrain from any
form of pressure, intimidation or reprisals likely to be detrimental to the physical and
psychological health of the complainant, which would otherwise constitute a violation of the
State Party’s obligations under the Convention to cooperate with the Committee in good faith
in the implementation of the provisions of the Convention; and (c) ensure that similar
violations do not occur in the future, including by establishing a mechanism capable of
conducting an impartial investigation into the complainant’s allegations regarding the
conditions of detention and effectively guaranteeing his right to lodge a complaint regarding
those conditions.
29 See also Kabura v. Burundi (CAT/C/59/D/549/2013), para. 7.8.
CAT/C/84/D/1134/2022
12
GE.26-07111
11.
In accordance with rule 118 (5) of its rules of procedure, the Committee invites the
State Party to inform it, within 90 days of the date of transmission of the present decision, of
the steps it has taken in response to the above observations.