Inadmissibility 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.26-07213 (E) 240726 240726
Committee against Torture
Decision adopted by the Committee under article 22 of the
Convention, concerning communication No. 1135/2022**, ***
Communication submitted by:
Hassan Dah (represented by counsel,
Joseph Breham)
Alleged victim:
The complainant
State Party:
Morocco
Date of complaint:
31 May 2022 (date of 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 14 June 2022 (not issued in
document form)
Date of adoption of decision:
17 April 2026
Subject matter:
Torture in detention
Procedural issue:
Exhaustion of domestic remedies
Substantive issues:
Torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment; prevention of torture;
treatment of prisoners; impartial investigation;
right to file a complaint; right to a remedy
Articles of the Convention:
1, 2 and 11–16
1.1
The complainant is Hassan Dah, a national of Morocco born in 1987 in Western
Sahara. He claims that the State Party has violated his rights under articles 1, 2 and 11–16 of
the Convention. The State Party has made the declaration pursuant to article 22 (1), effective
from 19 October 2006. The complainant is represented by counsel.
1.2
On 14 June 2022, pursuant to rule 114 (1) of its rules of procedure, and in the light of
the information provided by the complainant, the Committee, acting through its Rapporteur
on new complaints and interim measures, requested the State Party to: (a) stop subjecting the
complainant to solitary confinement; (b) immediately provide the complainant with adequate
medical and psychological care and consider the possibility of an alternative to detention,
Reissued for technical reasons on 23 July 2026.
** 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 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, read in conjunction with rule 15, 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/1135/2022
Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment
Distr.: General
8 June 2026
English
Original: French
CAT/C/84/D/1135/2022
2
GE.26-07213
taking into account the complainant’s state of health; (c) take protective measures for the
complainant to prevent him from being subjected to reprisals for having submitted a
communication to the Committee; and (d) ensure that he has unimpeded access to counsel.
Facts as submitted by the complainant
2.1
Beginning on 9 October 2010, thousands of Saharans living in Western Sahara left
their homes for temporary camps located on the outskirts of towns, including Gdeim Izik, a
camp in the vicinity of Laayoune. The aim of this initiative was to denounce the
discrimination that Saharans believe they are subjected to by the State Party. The complainant
was involved in the establishment of the camp; in particular, he covered demonstrations held
by camp activists for Saharan radio and television stations, ensuring that they were given a
considerable airing.
2.2
On 8 November 2010, Moroccan army personnel, armed with water cannons and tear
gas, attacked the Gdeim Izik camp, which was at the time occupied by more than
20,000 Saharans. As the camp was being forcibly cleared, clashes broke out between the
army and Saharan demonstrators, and Moroccan soldiers were reportedly killed. A violent
wave of repression led by the Moroccan security forces and supported by Moroccan civilians
residing in Saharan territory ensued.
2.3
On 4 December 2010, at around 7 p.m., the complainant was at Café Las Dunas in
Laayoune with two other people. A dozen hooded men, some in plain clothes and others in
black uniforms, burst into the café in search of the complainant. They ordered him to follow
them without resisting and did not tell him why or on what legal basis he was being arrested.
Sensing the treatment that, as it turned out, was in store for him, the complainant, chanting
political slogans in support of the Saharan cause, refused to follow the men. He was then
beaten and forcibly taken away with the two people who were with him. Upon leaving the
café, he was separated from those two people, hooded, handcuffed and forced into a car.
2.4
In the car taking him – still blindfolded and handcuffed – to his first place of detention,
the complainant was subjected to severe ill-treatment. He was insulted and violently beaten
all over, particularly on the head, with a blunt object. One of these blows, delivered to his
right ear, caused him to lose consciousness. He did not regain consciousness until he arrived
at the police headquarters. He was lying on the floor and felt intense pain all over, particularly
in his head and buttocks, as if he had been subjected to anal penetration. In addition to being
handcuffed, he was still blindfolded, so he did not know where he was. He was then stripped
naked and examined, without receiving any medical care, by someone he could not identify.
2.5
On the same day, the complainant was transferred to the headquarters of the Royal
Gendarmerie in Laayoune. He was in solitary confinement for four days in appalling
conditions: he remained naked for four days, even though his cell had no furniture, forcing
him to sleep on the floor without a mattress or blanket. He was given neither food nor water.
When he asked to go to the lavatory, he was beaten on the way there from his cell. He was
subjected to daily interrogation by three officers.1 Barely conscious as a result of the pain he
was still experiencing, he was questioned for hours about his activities in defence of the rights
of the Saharan people and regularly sprayed with ice-cold water.
2.6
The interrogation sessions were punctuated by acts of torture. First, the gendarmes
kicked and slapped him and burned him with their cigarettes. He was then forced into the
so-called roast chicken position.2 Subsequently, he was placed on a chair suspended high
above the ground, with a hole in the seat, and violently beaten on his genitals. A cloth soaked
in urine or faeces was also inserted into his mouth for several hours. His head was dunked
into a barrel of dirty water, and he was beaten with a salt-covered rope. Lastly, his persecutors
threatened to pull his fingernails out and electrocute him.
1 The complainant provides the names of the three officers.
2 Suspended by the wrists and knees from a metal bar, upside down and in a crouching position.
According to the complainant, this technique was commonly used by the Moroccan authorities in
Western Sahara.
CAT/C/84/D/1135/2022
GE.26-07213
3
2.7
After four days of this treatment, exhausted and under threat of rape, the complainant
agreed to sign and affix his fingerprints to a report. In the report, he admitted to having been
one of the instigators of the violence to which law enforcement officers had been subjected
on 8 November 2010 and to having himself thrown Molotov cocktails at them.
2.8
The complainant then left the headquarters of the Royal Gendarmerie. In handcuffs
and again blindfolded, he was placed in the back of a vehicle and transferred to a military-type
aircraft. The complainant was beaten without let-up for the duration of the three-hour flight.
Upon landing, he was brought before an investigating judge for the first time. He was asked
only to confirm his identity and was unable to make any other statements. He was then taken
to the prison Salé 1.
2.9
Once there, the complainant was asked to put on a prison uniform. While he was
putting it on, he was again kicked violently, including in the buttocks.3 He was placed in a
cell with two other detainees. Despite his numerous wounds and bruises and his deplorable
health, he was never examined by a doctor. The few bandages that a nurse put on the wounds
on his buttocks during his first week in prison accounted for the sum total of the medical care
he received. For three months, he was unable to go out, as he was not allowed recreation
time. During those three months, and the 10 years of detention that followed, the complainant
was regularly subjected to acts of torture.4
2.10
The complainant’s family was never informed of his arrest. It was only on the fourth
day that his aunt learned he had been arrested. A month after he was arrested, his family and
those of his Saharan fellow prisoners organized protests in front of the offices of the General
Delegation for Prison Administration and Reintegration to demand information about the fate
of their loved ones. In the wake of negotiations intended to end these protests, the
complainant’s aunt was allowed to visit him for three minutes in an unlit room; they were
separated by an iron grille through which it was difficult for them to see each other. Once
they had been given permission to visit, the complainant’s family members were allowed to
see him, albeit only in a corridor under the supervision of prison guards, through a barred
door and at more than a metre’s distance. Three months after the arrest, the complainant’s
aunt was able to speak with him in private. The complainant, severely emaciated and with
his face disfigured by swelling, showed her the bruises covering his body. There was a wide
black band around his waist.
2.11
The complainant, not represented by counsel, disfigured and in appalling health, with
lesions and bruises all over, including on his head, was brought before an investigating judge
in late March 2011. He reported the torture that he had been subjected to while in custody
and informed the judge that he had signed the statement presented to him by the gendarme
only under duress, without even reading it.5 The investigating judge, however, relying solely
on the statement signed under torture to refer the complainant to court, did nothing to
document those acts of torture or investigate the persons responsible. On 17 February 2013,
on the conclusion of a mass trial of 25 Saharan defendants, the Rabat Military Court
sentenced the complainant to 30 years in prison for criminal association and intentional
violence causing the death of public officials acting in their official capacity.
2.12
The most glaring irregularities denounced by both the defendants and their lawyers,
as well as by international observers present at the hearings, include the refusal of the judicial
authorities to investigate allegations of torture and the use of the defendants’ alleged
confessions, signed under torture, as the main evidence against them. During the trial, in fact,
only one of the defendants stated that he had not been subjected to violence, but all the others,
including the complainant, claimed that they had been tortured at the Laayoune police station,
at the Laayoune headquarters of the Royal Gendarmerie, at the court building in Laayoune,
on the flight to Rabat or in prison.6
3 No specifics were provided.
4 No specifics were provided.
5 Rabat Military Court, investigating judge, referral order of 22 November 2011.
6 Rabat Military Court, record of the hearing of 8 February 2013.
CAT/C/84/D/1135/2022
4
GE.26-07213
2.13
Most of the defendants stated that they had reported these acts of torture to the judicial
authorities before whom they had been brought after being arrested but that the authorities
had not initiated an investigation. Both the investigating judge and the prosecutor refused not
only to put the defendants’ allegations on record but also to order any medical examinations.
No action was ever taken in follow-up to the written complaints that some of the defendants
had their lawyers submit.7
2.14
In the defence statement he transmitted to the Military Court on 31 January 2013, the
lawyer for the complainant and his fellow defendants denounced the fact that the confessions
had been signed under torture, in violation of the Moroccan Constitution and the Code of
Criminal Procedure, but the Court did not respond. On 1 February 2013, at the first hearing
of the trial before the Military Court, the lawyer for one of the defendants requested that the
drafters of the signed statements be summoned to question them about the circumstances of
the interrogations,8 but the Court did not respond to this request.
2.15
At the hearing on 8 February 2013, one of the lawyers denounced the failure of the
military investigating judge to order a medical examination of any of the defendants, even
though some of them showed clear signs of having been subjected to violence. In its interim
order of 8 February 2013, the Military Court simply put on record the allegations of torture
made by the defendants. Neither the Military Court nor the prosecution responded to these
allegations of torture by conducting an investigation. In a second provisional order, issued
on 15 February 2013, the Military Court explicitly rejected the request to open an
investigation into torture made by the lawyers of other of the complainant’s fellow
defendants, expressing the view that the defendants had had the opportunity during the
preliminary investigation to make such a request but that they had not done so and
highlighting the long period of time between the trial and the preliminary investigation.
2.16
On 27 July 2016, the Court of Cassation overturned the judgment of the Military
Court9 and referred the case to the Rabat Court of Appeals.10 A new trial began in January
2017. The allegations of torture were reiterated by the lawyers and defendants from the outset
of the new trial. On several occasions during the trial, all the defendants requested that the
Court of Appeals set aside the statements that had been signed under torture and remove them
from the record of the proceedings. On 25 January 2017, more than six years after the events,
the presiding judge of the Court of Appeals agreed to allow the defendants to undergo
forensic medical assessments. However, these assessments were entrusted to three Moroccan
forensic doctors who had not been trained on the Manual on the Effective Investigation and
Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(Istanbul Protocol) and did not offer sufficient guarantees of independence.11
2.17
The complainant agreed to submit to the forensic assessment,12 the findings of which
were that, as with 15 other co-defendants, his symptoms and the objective data from the
assessment were not specific to the various alleged methods of torture. 13 The doctors
nonetheless observed circular scars on the complainant’s right and left wrists, consistent with
his statements that he was hung by his wrists for a long time. They also noted several scars
on the complainant’s left buttock, pelvis and upper thigh, consistent with his claim that he
was hit several times with a blunt object in the buttock area.
7 Ibid.
8 Rabat Military Court, record of the hearing of 1 February 2013.
9 The Court of Cassation found that it had not been shown that all the constituent elements of the
offence were present.
10 In the meantime, the law had changed and the crimes for which the trial was being held were no
longer under military jurisdiction.
11 On the grounds that these forensic doctors are attached to the Court of Appeals.
12 Sixteen defendants agreed to submit to the medical assessments ordered by the Court.
13 The shortcomings of these forensic assessments were confirmed by three second opinions produced in
May 2017 at the request of the defence lawyers and in which it was concluded that there had been a
clear failure to comply with the recommendations of the Istanbul Protocol.
CAT/C/84/D/1135/2022
GE.26-07213
5
2.18
On 19 July 2017, the Rabat Court of Appeals sentenced the complainant, primarily on
the basis of statements signed under torture, to 25 years’ imprisonment. Although the defence
lawyers emphasized the partiality and inaccuracy of these statements, the Court of Appeals
drew on findings of the forensic medical assessments in its refusal to strike the statements
containing the defendants’ confessions from the record. On 25 November 2020, the Court of
Cassation dismissed the appeal.
2.19
On 6 December 2017, the complainant was transferred to Kénitra Central Prison.
Complaint
3.1
The physical abuse to which the complainant was subjected on being arrested, in the
car taking him to the police headquarters and, subsequently, at the Laayoune Royal
Gendarmerie headquarters, as well as the treatment to which he was subjected while being
transferred to Rabat and in prison in Salé, the aim of which was to force him to confess, to
intimidate him and to subject him to discrimination on account of his Saharan ethnic origin,
is tantamount to torture under article 1 of the Convention. The complainant also claims that
he was denied food and kept in solitary confinement, naked on the floor of his cell, for several
days and did not receive the medical care he needed. The acts and treatment to which the
complainant was subjected constitute, at the very least, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment as set out in article 16. Furthermore, the failure of the Moroccan authorities to
establish an effective system to prevent torture constitutes a violation of article 2 of the
Convention.
3.2
The complainant, invoking article 11 of the Convention, submits that he was in
custody outside any legal framework for several days, as he was not informed of the reasons
for the arrest or brought before a judge. Subsequently, he continued to be denied access to a
doctor despite his poor health and was unable to contact either his family or a lawyer.
3.3
The complainant notes that, on 8 or 9 December 2010, he appeared before the military
investigating judge with visible signs of torture on his body and asked the judge to document
them. The judge refused to do so, however, and did not put the facts on record or immediately
launch an investigation. When, three months later, he was again brought before an
investigating judge, the complainant, disfigured and in deplorable health, once more reported
the torture that he had been subjected to. The judge, however, did nothing to document these
acts of torture or identify the persons responsible. Ignoring the complainant’s statements, the
judge referred him to the Military Court on the basis of nothing but his forced confessions.
The Military Court, too, failed take into account his allegations of torture when it convicted
him. Consequently, nearly 12 years after the events and although he has on several occasions
reported the torture he was subjected to, no investigation has been initiated to determine the
nature and circumstances of this torture or the identity of the persons involved. It is therefore
clear that the State Party has failed to fulfil its obligations under articles 12 and 13 of the
Convention. In addition, the ongoing absence of an investigation prevents the complainant
from obtaining the means for rehabilitation, compensation, support and guarantees of
non-repetition of the offence, in violation of article 14 of the Convention.
3.4
Lastly, the complainant has always maintained before the national authorities that his
conviction was based solely on alleged confessions, given that he claims not to have
confessed to anything but to have been forced, after four days of torture, to sign and affix his
fingerprints to a document whose contents were unknown to him. The Moroccan authorities
never initiated an investigation to confirm the veracity of his statements. Although the
complainant has, through his lawyer, contested the probative value of the confessions signed
under torture at various stages of the proceedings against him, the Court of Appeals, which
did not order an investigation, found the confessions admissible. By failing to determine the
veracity of those statements, and by using them in the judicial proceedings against the
complainant, the State Party manifestly violated its obligations under article 15 of the
Convention.
State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 14 December 2022, the State Party contested the admissibility of the complaint on
the grounds of failure to exhaust domestic remedies and abuse of the right to submit a
CAT/C/84/D/1135/2022
6
GE.26-07213
communication, since nearly 12 years had passed since the alleged events.14 It wonders why
there was 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 to report on a general
situation with the help of vague and ultimately unfounded general allegations revealing
purely political motives. It finds it regrettable that the complaint, like the six others relating
to the dismantling of the Gdeim Izik camp to have been submitted to the Committee, is a
vehicle for an attempt by the complainant to make, under the cloak of numerous allegations
of human rights violations, purely political demands that fall outside the scope of the
Committee’s mandate.
4.2
The State Party specifies that the complainant asserts that the authorities have never
agreed to investigate the allegations of torture and ill-treatment but notes that, with regard to
the torture and ill-treatment that he was allegedly subjected to while in police custody or
thereafter, he has never filed a formal complaint that could trigger such an investigation or
shown that he has taken any steps to submit such a complaint to a judicial authority or any
other Moroccan human rights mechanisms at either the local or the national level.
4.3
On the merits, the State Party argues that, notwithstanding the complainant’s claims
to the contrary, the complainant was arrested by the Laayoune police on 5 December 2010
after the issuance, requested by the Laayoune Royal Gendarmerie, of a nationwide search
warrant on 13 November 2010. The complainant was arrested for his involvement in the
events that occurred at the Gdeim Izik camp, during the dismantling of which 11 members
of the security forces were callously killed, 161 were injured and several public facilities
were damaged. The complainant was in police custody from 5 to 7 December 2010, a period
fully within the legal time limit.
4.4
While the complainant was in police custody, all of his rights were respected. He was
informed of the reasons for his arrest. His family was notified in a timely manner, in
accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, that he had been taken into police custody.
He voluntarily admitted to being one of the organizers of the armed gathering and one of the
perpetrators of the acts of aggression targeting law enforcement officers. Likewise, he
confessed to making and throwing Molotov cocktails at the authorities and using vehicles to
hit and kill members of their ranks. He himself read his statement and had it remain as it was,
without any additions, deletions or other changes, and signed the statement logbook. On
7 December 2010, he was brought before the Crown Prosecutor General of the Laayoune
Court of Appeals, on whose instructions he was transferred to the Rabat Military Court.
4.5
The State Party emphasizes that once the Rabat Court of Appeals was made aware of
the allegations of torture, the Court, acting in follow-up to a request made by the
complainant’s lawyer, ordered a medical assessment. A tripartite commission, which was
chaired by a professor of forensic medicine and composed of a doctor specializing in trauma
and orthopaedics and a psychiatrist and judicial expert working for the Rabat Court of
Appeals, was entrusted with this assessment. The conclusion of the assessment, conducted in
accordance with the Istanbul Protocol on 15 March 2017, was that the symptoms still
presented by the complainant were not caused, as he had claimed, by acts of torture or
ill-treatment. It was therefore established that the allegations of torture were unfounded. The
assessment involved interviews, medical and clinical tests, psychological evaluations,
evaluations of motor skills and the nervous system and other complementary tests. In
addition, counsel for the defence was given the opportunity to comment on this assessment.
4.6
As for the conditions of detention, the State Party submits that, since his incarceration,
the complainant has enjoyed all his legal rights and is therefore being detained with the
utmost respect for his dignity, his claims to the contrary notwithstanding. He has never been
subjected to physical or psychological violence or discrimination. He is in a cell that has a
television and that meets all international standards for cell size, natural light, ventilation and
hygiene.
4.7
In follow-up to the complainant’s claims that he was subjected to ill-treatment at the
local prison in Salé and in Kénitra Central Prison, the Crown Prosecutor General of the Rabat
Court of Appeals asked the wardens of both prisons to provide him with complete and
14 Gobin v. Mauritius (CCPR/C/72/D/787/1997), para. 6.3.
CAT/C/84/D/1135/2022
GE.26-07213
7
accurate reports on the conditions in which the complainant was detained. These reports
showed that the complainant’s allegations were wholly baseless.
4.8
The State Party notes that the complainant is being held in in a single-occupancy cell
located in a wing housing 69 other inmates, including those prosecuted in the same case. He
has the right to recreation time in the yard, where, in what is in no way a form of solitary
confinement, he encounters his fellow inmates and participates in sporting activities. He is
given the medical care and examinations he needs, including the medication prescribed by
the attending physician. In 2022, for example, he had seven appointments with general
practitioners, most recently, for a case of conjunctivitis, on 27 May. He was prescribed
medical treatment. His overall health is currently good.
4.9
Since his transfer to Kénitra Central Prison, the complainant has been able to receive
visits from the members of his family every time they have come to visit him, most recently
on 1 December 2022. In addition, he makes calls from the facility’s landline three times a
week for 15 minutes and can reach members of his family at several of their phone numbers;
the most recent call was made on 12 December 2022.
Complainant’s comments on the State Party’s observations
5.1
On 15 September 2025, the complainant submitted his comments on the State Party’s
observations. He maintains that he was apprehended on 4 December 2010, not, as claimed
by the State Party, on 5 December.15 The complainant then notes that the State Party fails to
mention that, when, in late March 2011 – that is, more than three months after he had been
arrested – he appeared before the investigating judge, and while he was in deplorable health,
without a lawyer, he reported the torture he had been subjected to and informed the judge
that he had signed the police report only under duress, without knowing what was in it. The
defence lawyers put these claims on record and referred to them during the hearings held in
the Military Court in February 2013. These repeated public denunciations should have
prompted the Moroccan judicial authorities to open an impartial and thorough investigation
on their own initiative, in accordance with articles 12 and 13 of the Convention. These facts
fly in the face of the State Party’s assertion that the complainant never filed a formal
complaint of acts of torture.
5.2
The complainant argues that the independence of the commission responsible for the
medical assessment was compromised by its composition, as the three doctors were attached
directly to the Rabat Court of Appeals and thus answerable to the Court called upon to rule
on the guilt of the accused. This lack of institutional and operational independence is
incompatible with the Istanbul Protocol. According to the complainant, the doctors lacked
specialized training on the Istanbul Protocol, as their findings showed that they clearly lacked
an understanding of the required methodology: there was no in-depth collection of medical
histories, no consideration of previous testimony, no complete clinical examination of old
injuries and no detailed psychological assessment. The interviews conducted by the doctors
were of a brevity incommensurate with the seriousness of the events. Lastly, these medical
assessments took place more than six years after the alleged events, considerably lessening
their probative value.
5.3
Conversely, several medical specialists and recognized international experts provided
independent second opinions in which they concluded that the allegations of torture made by
the complainant and his fellow defendants were credible. These second opinions, some of
which were provided by co-authors of the Istanbul Protocol, highlighted the compatibility of
the observed sequelae and the acts of torture that had been described. In these second
opinions, it was emphasized that, in the Moroccan medical reports, there were serious
methodological flaws, a failure to take notice of visible lesions, a failure to take the context
of the initial detention into account and a lack of impartiality.
15 According to the decision to convene a trial of 22 November 2011, the complainant was arrested on
5 December 2010.
CAT/C/84/D/1135/2022
8
GE.26-07213
5.4
With regard to the conditions of detention, the complainant states that he has been
transferred several times to prisons far from his family, in particular to Kénitra Central Prison,
located more than 1,300 km from Laayoune. These transfers have hindered family visits,
which have become exceptionally costly and difficult for his family to organize. This
practice, which has been criticized in other communications considered by the Committee,
can be seen as a disguised punitive measure and is a violation of prisoners’ right to respect
for family life.16
5.5
The complainant’s telephone contact with the outside world is severely restricted,
limited to a few minutes a week, once a week. Permission for visits, when it is given, is given
arbitrarily, and visits are sometimes cancelled at the last minute for no reason. These
systematic restrictions have the effect of isolating the complainant and depriving him of the
essential support of his family and friends.
5.6
The medical care the complainant is given is unsatisfactory. Although he is still
experiencing the physical and psychological after-effects of the torture he endured when he
was arrested and while he was in police custody, he has not had access to appropriate
specialized care. He has been denied access to medical care on numerous occasions. This
lack of appropriate care exacerbates his suffering and constitutes a violation of the State
Party’s obligations under article 14 of the Convention, under which victims of torture have a
right to means for as full rehabilitation as possible. The complainant was therefore forced to
go on hunger strikes to denounce the unacceptable conditions in which he was detained and
demand respect for his fundamental rights.
State Party’s additional observations
6.1
In a letter dated 5 January 2026, the State Party insists that the complainant is
attempting to distort the reality of a case that falls exclusively under ordinary law and
implicates him in acts of extreme seriousness that led to the deaths of 10 law enforcement
officials and a civil protection officer. It then reasserts that the excessive delay in submitting
individual communications to the relevant treaty bodies constitutes an abuse of process and
that the complainant has never lodged a complaint of torture and ill-treatment with the
domestic courts.
6.2
The State Party argues that, notwithstanding the complainant’s claims that he was held
for four days during the preliminary investigation, the case file shows that he was in police
custody from 5 to 7 December 2010 and that his family was notified that he had been taken
into custody. Confirmation of this notification can be found in the 5 December 2010 report
drawn up by the Criminal Investigation Department, which attests to the legality of the search
for and arrest and questioning of the complainant, as well as the circumstances of those
operations, and to the provision of all necessary procedural guarantees during the preliminary
investigation.
6.3
This report was submitted for review to the court with jurisdiction over the case, which
considered the arguments and objections raised concerning the alleged violation of the
procedural rules and guarantees relating to police custody. The court found that the measures
taken by the Criminal Investigation Department in the preliminary investigation, conducted
under the supervision of the competent public prosecutor’s office, complied with legal
requirements in respect of both the duration of police custody and the notification of the
complainant’s family, that the allegations made by the complainant’s lawyer were entirely
without merit and that no material evidence contradicted the facts of which there was a record
in the report in dispute. The fact that the Court of Cassation, after examining and analysing
the case, ruled that the steps that were taken involved no procedural irregularities, contrary
to what has been claimed, renders moot any discussion of this issue.
6.4
The State Party categorically rejects the complainant’s unfounded allegations
concerning the circumstances of his arrest and reaffirms that the allegations of arbitrary
detention, torture or ill-treatment are not based on any tangible evidence or objective
findings. It objects firmly to any assertion that the complainant was convicted on the strength
of preliminary confessions obtained under duress, asserting that this allegation is not only
16 M.B. v. Morocco (CAT/C/72/D/923/2019), para. 2.9.
CAT/C/84/D/1135/2022
GE.26-07213
9
unfounded but also based on a misinterpretation of the established facts and seemingly
motivated by a determination to discredit the judicial institutions. The forensic medical
experts concluded unequivocally that the sequelae presented by the complainant were
unrelated to the alleged methods of torture. In addition, all the experts attended the hearing
on 6 June 2017, at which the technical aspects of the report, as well as its methodology and
its compliance with the procedures set out in the Istanbul Protocol, were examined.
6.5
The State Party specifies that the complainant was convicted not solely because of his
confession but also because the Criminal Investigation Department had identified him at the
camp, in the company of the other defendants, while they were leading an attack on law
enforcement officers on 8 November 2010. The conviction was also based on oral evidence
collected by the Court after the administration of oaths and confirmation of the absence of
obstacles to testifying.
6.6
The State Party asserts that the composition of the medical commission was
compatible with regulatory principles guaranteeing its independence and that the appointed
experts acted impartially, free from any outside influence exerted by the judicial authorities.
The inclusion of experts on lists drawn up by the courts is an internal organizational measure
that does not prevent courts from appointing other experts. The fact that the appointed experts
practice in the jurisdiction of the Rabat Court of Appeals should in no way be interpreted to
mean that they are answerable to that Court or that their operational independence or
professional impartiality is compromised.
6.7
The State Party notes that the medical examination that took place at the request of
counsel for the defence complied with all the standards set out in the Istanbul Protocol. It was
done by forensic doctors who conducted a medical investigation into the allegations of torture
independently and without any outside influence or interference. It was established that these
doctors had had in-depth discussions with the complainant, during which he had been able to
make his allegations of torture in detail. The complainant underwent clinical examinations,
an examination of his motor and neurological systems and an assessment of his psychological
condition, in addition to a battery of complementary tests. The claim that the Moroccan
experts lacked independence has no legal basis and cannot be upheld.
6.8
The State Party notes that the complainant, believing that this long interval affects the
probative value and effectiveness of the medical assessment, finds fault with the fact that it
took place six years after the alleged acts while also believing that the second opinions
provided by the international medical experts, which were based on the Moroccan medical
assessment, are reliable and credible, despite also having been produced at the very temporal
remove that he had found fault with. In the State Party’s view, this glaring contradiction is
proof of the complainant’s reliance on double standards.
6.9
Lastly, the State Party notes that, the complainant’s claims to the contrary
notwithstanding, he uses the prison’s landline three times a week. His most recent call – to
his sister – was made on 22 October 2025. He receives visits from his family and friends in
good conditions, benefiting from options for the duration and frequency of visits. The most
recent family visit took place on 10 October 2025. With regard to his health, the complainant
has had 24 in-house general medical consultations, the most recent of which was on
25 September 2025. He also had an eye test during a medical campaign organized at the
establishment on 1 June 2022. His overall health is currently good.
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 that the State Party contends that the communication is
inadmissible because its submission was an abuse of the right of submission and because
domestic remedies have not been exhausted. First, the Committee points out that neither the
CAT/C/84/D/1135/2022
10
GE.26-07213
Convention nor the Committee’s rules of procedure establish a time limit for submitting a
communication. In any event, it notes that the complainant claims not only that he was
subjected to torture and ill-treatment when he was arrested and held in custody in 2010 but
also that there was no investigation into his allegations of torture or concerning the conditions
of detention at the time of the submission of the communication, claims that do not constitute
an abuse of the right of submission under article 22 (2) of the Convention.
7.3
With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee takes note of the
State Party’s argument that the complainant did not lodge a formal complaint of torture with
the competent authorities. The Committee notes, however, the complainant’s response that
he appeared before the military investigating judge on 8 or 9 December 2010 with visible
signs of torture on his body and asked the judge to document those signs. The judge refused
to do so, however, and did not put the facts on record or immediately launch an investigation.
Three months later, the complainant, exhibiting visible signs of torture, was again brought
before an investigating judge and again reported the torture that he had been subjected to, but
the judge took no action. Subsequently, the Military Court, too, failed to take into account
his allegations when it convicted him. The Committee notes in this regard that allegations of
torture appear in the trial transcripts of the Rabat Military Court but that at no point did the
authorities conduct an investigation. In addition, it notes that, after he was arrested, the
complainant did not have access to a doctor of his choosing providing sufficient guarantees
of independence from the prison system.
7.4
In the absence of any pertinent information from the State Party in this regard, the
Committee concludes that the State Party’s objection to the admissibility of the complaint on
the grounds of failure to exhaust domestic remedies is, in this case, irrelevant, as it has failed
to demonstrate that existing remedies for reporting acts of torture were, in practice, made
available to the complainant to enable him to assert his rights under the Convention.17 The
Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under
article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention.
7.5
With reference to article 22 (4) of the Convention and rule 111 of the Committee’s
rules of procedure, the Committee finds no other obstacle to the admissibility of the
communication and proceeds to its consideration of the merits with respect to articles 2 (1)
and 11–15 of the Convention, read in conjunction with article 1, and with respect to article 16.
Consideration of the merits
8.1
In accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, the Committee has considered
the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties.
8.2
The Committee takes note of the complainant’s claim that the physical abuse that he
was subjected to on being arrested, in the car taking him to the police headquarters and while
being questioned at the Laayoune Royal Gendarmerie headquarters, in addition to the
treatment to which he was subjected during his transfer from Rabat and in prison in Salé,
constitutes torture under article 1 of the Convention. It also notes that the complainant, not
represented by counsel and bearing visible signs of torture, about which he made explicit
allegations at the time, was brought before an investigating judge of the Military Court a few
days after being arrested18 and then in late March 2011 and later still before the Military
Court, which did not order an investigation into these allegations. In addition, the Committee
takes note of the complainant’s claims that he was subjected to the “roast chicken” method,
which is essentially a form of torture, and that he was kicked and slapped, burned with
cigarettes, violently struck on the genitals, forced to keep a cloth soaked in urine or faeces in
his mouth, dunked head first into a barrel of dirty water, beaten with a salt-covered rope and
threatened. According to the State Party, the complainant did not formally lodge a complaint
of torture with the competent authorities. The Committee notes, too, the State Party’s
argument that, when it was apprised of the allegations of torture made by the complainant
and his fellow defendants in the proceedings in the ordinary jurisdiction, the Rabat Court of
Appeals appointed three doctors to produce an expert medical assessment.
17 Laaroussi v. Morocco (CAT/C/74/D/891/2018), para. 7.5.
18 The parties do not agree on the exact date.
CAT/C/84/D/1135/2022
GE.26-07213
11
8.3
The Committee notes that the conclusion of the medical assessment was that the
allegations of torture were unfounded. It takes note of the State Party’s argument that the
medical assessment demonstrated that the signs and complications presented by the
complainant were not the result of torture or ill-treatment. It nonetheless notes that, according
to the complainant, this medical assessment was not conducted – as required under, for
example, the Istanbul Protocol – by independent and impartial physicians. In this regard, it
points out that the findings of the medical assessments of the complainant and his fellow
defendants were presented to international doctors for second opinions, who concluded that
the Istanbul Protocol had not been followed, in particular because the rules on the
independence and impartiality of the experts had not been followed, the interviews had been
of very short duration, the evaluation of trauma and psychological harm had been
unsatisfactory and the findings of all the expert assessments, which contained no indication
of the degree of compatibility of the lesions that had been observed with the alleged abuse,
were similar. The Committee notes that the State Party vouches for the doctors’ impartiality,
competence and professionalism. It is of the view, however, that the State Party does not
provide information to confirm that the medical assessment was performed by independent
and impartial doctors as required under, for example, the Istanbul Protocol and as part of an
official investigation into the complainant’s allegations of torture. It notes, too, that the
medical assessment took place more than six years after the alleged events and that the
interval between those events and the assessment seems not have been taken into account.19
8.4
The Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which any persons deprived of
their liberty must be provided with prompt and independent legal and medical assistance and
must be able to contact their families, in order to prevent torture.20 It also notes that the
complainant was placed in solitary confinement on several occasions and recalls its position
on the subject – specifically, that solitary confinement may constitute torture or inhuman
treatment and that it should be regulated so as to be a measure of last resort, to be applied in
exceptional circumstances, for as short a time as possible, under strict supervision and with
the possibility of judicial review.21 Taking account of the complainant’s assertion that he was
afforded none of these protections while he was in pretrial detention or solitary confinement,
and in the absence of persuasive rebuttals of these allegations from the State Party, the
Committee finds that the physical ill-treatment and injuries that the complainant asserts that
he endured when he was arrested and interrogated and while he was in detention constitute
torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention.22
8.5
The Committee is of the view that, insofar as it involved punitive and discriminatory
measures, everything that the complainant was made to endure while he was in detention –
namely, (a) the deplorable sanitary conditions of his cells; (b) the long periods of solitary
confinement without being able to see a doctor of his choosing; (c) the denial of food; and
(d) his limited access to his lawyer and family – also constitutes torture. Accordingly, the
Committee does not consider it necessary to examine separately the claims under article 16
of the Convention.23
8.6
The complainant also invokes article 2 (1) of the Convention, pursuant to which the
State Party should have taken effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures
to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. The Committee recalls its
concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Morocco, in which it expressed
concern about the situation in Western Sahara and allegations of, inter alia, torture,
ill-treatment and the extraction of confessions under torture24 and called on the State Party to
take, as a matter of urgency, substantive steps to prevent all acts of torture and ill-treatment
and announce the introduction of a policy that would produce measurable progress towards
19 Laaroussi v. Morocco, para. 8.2, and M.B. v. Morocco, para. 13.2.
20 See Committee against Torture, general comment No. 2 (2007) on the implementation of article 2.
21 CAT/C/51/4, para. 32.
22 Asfari v. Morocco (CAT/C/59/D/606/2014), para. 13.2, Abbahah v. Morocco
(CAT/C/72/D/871/2018), para. 11.2, Bani v. Morocco (CAT/C/75/D/999/2020), para. 7.2, Laaroussi
v. Morocco, para. 8.2, and M.B. v. Morocco, para. 13.2.
23 Ramírez Martínez et al. v. Mexico (CAT/C/55/D/500/2012), para. 17.4, Laaroussi v. Morocco,
para. 8.3, and M.B. v. Morocco, para. 13.3.
24 CAT/C/MAR/CO/4, para. 12. See also CCPR/C/MAR/CO/6, paras. 23 and 24.
CAT/C/84/D/1135/2022
12
GE.26-07213
the eradication of all torture and ill-treatment by State officials. In this case, the Committee
notes the complainant’s allegations concerning the treatment he was subjected to by State
officials while he was in custody, his inability to contact his family, his lack of access to
counsel and his limited access to a doctor. The authorities did not take any steps to investigate
the acts of torture to which the complainant was subjected or, if appropriate, to punish the
perpetrators, despite the visible signs of torture he bore and the complaints he had submitted
to the investigating judge and to the Military Court. In the light of the foregoing, the
Committee finds a violation of article 2 (1) of the Convention, read in conjunction with
article 1.25
8.7
The Committee then notes that the complainant claims that he is a victim of a violation
of his rights under article 11 of the Convention, in which States Parties are called on to keep
under systematic review arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to
any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under their jurisdiction, with a
view to preventing any cases of torture. In particular, the complainant claims that: (a) despite
his worsening health, he did not receive appropriate medical care from a doctor of his
choosing; (b) he was suffering from malnutrition and subjected to ill-treatment and abuse by
the prison authorities; (c) he was in solitary confinement and denied visits from his family
and lawyer; and (d) he did not have access to effective remedies to challenge the ill-treatment.
The Committee recalls its concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Morocco,
in which it found regrettable the lack of information on the practical application of basic
safeguards such as examination by an independent physician and notification of the family.26
8.8
The State Party provided information on the complainant’s conditions of detention
and his complaints of ill-treatment in detention only for the period after his transfer to the
prison in Salé. It asserts that the complainant’s family was notified in a timely manner of his
arrest and detention but, despite the complainant’s claim to the contrary, provides no
evidence for its assertion. The Committee notes, too, that it has provided general information
on the complainant’s conditions of detention and the medical care he has received without
providing relevant explanations of the steps it took to exercise the necessary oversight. In the
absence of any relevant information to the contrary from the State Party or any evidence that
the complainant’s allegations and his conditions of detention before he was transferred to the
prison in Salé were effectively addressed, the existence of these conditions and of
ill-treatment is sufficient to establish that the State Party failed to fulfil its obligation to keep
under systematic review arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to
any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a
view to preventing any cases of torture, and that this failure resulted in harm to the
complainant. The Committee therefore finds a violation of article 11 of the Convention.27
8.9
The Committee must also decide whether the failure to open an investigation into the
allegations of torture that the complainant submitted to the judicial authorities constitutes a
violation by the State Party of its obligations under article 12 of the Convention. The
Committee takes note of the complainant’s claims that: (a) he appeared on 8 or 9 December
2010 and in late March 2011 bearing visible signs of torture before the investigating judge
of the Military Court, who did not include these facts in the record of the proceedings; (b) he
later expressly complained, before the Military Court, about the torture to which he had been
subjected; and (c) neither the prosecutor nor the judge initiated an investigation at any point.
The State Party retorts that the complainant did not formally lodge a complaint of torture
with the competent authorities. The Committee notes that, after the case was referred to the
Rabat Court of Appeals and the complainant and his co-defendants made allegations of
torture, the complainant submitted to a medical assessment ordered by the Court. In this
connection, it notes the complainant’s claims that the medical assessments ordered by the
Court were not independent and impartial or part of an investigation into the torture that he
had been subjected to, as required under, for example, the Istanbul Protocol. Although the
Committee notes that the State Party vouches for the impartiality, competence and
professionalism of the experts who were responsible for the medical assessment, it is of the
25 Laaroussi v. Morocco, para. 8.4, M.B. v. Morocco, para. 13.4, and Bani v. Morocco, para. 9.4.
26 CAT/C/MAR/CO/4, para. 7.
27 Bani v. Morocco, para. 7.5, Laaroussi v. Morocco, para. 8.5, and M.B. v. Morocco, para. 13.5.
CAT/C/84/D/1135/2022
GE.26-07213
13
view that the State Party provides no relevant evidence that the assessment was performed,
as required under, for example, the Istanbul Protocol, by independent and impartial doctors.28
8.10
The Committee notes, too, that the investigating judge of the Military Court did not
order a medical examination, even though the complainant bore clear signs of physical abuse,
and that there was no investigation in this regard. Furthermore, the Military Court did not
take into account the complainant’s allegations of torture when it convicted him, and the State
Party denies that such allegations were made during the proceedings. The Committee notes,
in addition, that the State Party has far exceeded the reasonable length of time for rendering
justice in the complainant’s case and that, more than 15 years after the events and the
submission of the first allegations of torture, there has been no independent and impartial
investigation, as required under, for example, the Istanbul Protocol. The Committee therefore
finds that the absence of an investigation into the allegations of torture in the complainant’s
case is incompatible with the State Party’s obligation under article 12 of the Convention to
ensure that the competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation
whenever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed.29
8.11
In these circumstances, the State Party has also failed to meet its obligation under
article 13 of the Convention to guarantee the right of the complainant to lodge a complaint,
which calls for the authorities to provide a satisfactory response to such a complaint by
launching a prompt and impartial investigation. 30 The Committee notes that article 13
requires neither the formal lodging of a complaint of torture under the procedure laid down
in national law nor an express statement of desire that criminal proceedings be instituted; 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 step a tacit but unequivocal
expression of the victim’s wish to have an immediate and impartial investigation initiated, as
prescribed by this article of the Convention.31 The Committee concludes that the facts of the
case also involve a violation of article 13 of the Convention.32
8.12
The Committee recalls that, under article 14 of the Convention, the right of victims of
torture to fair and adequate compensation is recognized, and States Parties are required to
ensure that such victims obtain redress for the harm they have suffered. The redress must
cover all the harm suffered and should encompass restitution, compensation and guarantees
of non-repetition of the violations, taking into account the circumstances of the individual
case.33 In the present case, the Committee notes that the complainant claims that he suffers
from physical and psychological after-effects of the abuse to which he was subjected. The
failure of the military investigating judge to order an investigation into the allegations of
torture and the fact that the medical assessment ordered by the Court of Appeals was not
performed, as required under, for example, the Istanbul Protocol, by independent and
impartial doctors or as part of an investigation into those allegations prevented the
complainant from obtaining rehabilitation, compensation, support and guarantees of
non-repetition of the offence. The Committee is therefore of the view that the failure to
conduct a thorough, prompt and impartial investigation denied the complainant any
possibility of exercising his right to redress, in violation of article 14 of the Convention.34
28 Laaroussi v. Morocco, para. 8.6, Bani v. Morocco, para. 7.6, and M.B. v. Morocco, para. 13.6.
29 Asfari v. Morocco, para. 13.4, Abbahah v. Morocco, para. 11.7, Laaroussi v. Morocco, para. 8.7, Bani
v. Morocco, para. 7.7, and M.B. v. Morocco, para. 13.6.
30 Bendib v. Algeria (CAT/C/51/D/376/2009), para. 6.6.
31 Parot v. Spain (CAT/C/14/D/6/1990), para. 10.4, Blanco Abad v. Spain (CAT/C/20/D/59/1996),
para. 8.6, and Ltaief v. Tunisia (CAT/C/31/D/189/2001), para. 10.6.
32 Abbahah v. Morocco, para. 11.8, Laaroussi v. Morocco, para. 8.8, Bani v. Morocco, para. 7.8, and
M.B. v. Morocco, para. 13.7.
33 Bendib v. Algeria, para. 6.7.
34 Niyonzima v. Burundi (CAT/C/53/D/514/2012), para. 8.6, Asfari v. Morocco, para. 13.6, Abbahah v.
Morocco, para. 11.9, Laaroussi v. Morocco, para. 8.9, Bani v. Morocco, para. 7.9, and M.B. v.
Morocco, para. 13.8.
CAT/C/84/D/1135/2022
14
GE.26-07213
8.13
The complainant also claims to be a victim of a violation of article 15 of the
Convention, as he was convicted on the basis of confessions obtained through torture. He
claims not to have confessed but to have been forced, while handcuffed and blindfolded, to
sign a document without knowing what was in it. The Committee recalls that the general
nature of the provisions of article 15 derives from the absolute nature of the prohibition of
torture and therefore implies an obligation for any State Party to verify that statements
included in proceedings under its jurisdiction were not obtained through torture.35 In the
present case, the Committee notes that, according to the complainant, he was prosecuted and
convicted on the basis of the statements that he signed as a result of torture and that, at various
stages of the proceedings against him, he contested, to no avail, the probative value of the
confession he had signed under torture. The Committee also notes that the Court of Appeals
did not give due consideration to the allegations of torture when, on the basis of his
confession, it convicted the complainant. The Committee is of the view that the State Party
was under an obligation to ascertain whether the complainant’s claims were well founded.
By failing to fulfil that obligation other than through the medical assessment ordered by the
Court of Appeals, which was not performed by independent and impartial doctors, as required
under, for example, the Istanbul Protocol, and by using such statements in the judicial
proceedings against the complainant, the State Party manifestly violated its obligations under
article 15 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that, in its concluding observations on
the fourth periodic report of Morocco,36 it expressed concern about the fact that, under the
State Party’s current system of investigation, confessions are commonly used as evidence for
purposes of prosecution and conviction, thus creating conditions that may provide more
scope for the torture and ill-treatment of suspects.37
8.14
Lastly, the Committee notes the systemic nature of the series of cases concerning the
events of 8 November 2010 in the Gdeim Izik camp. As its jurisprudence shows, these cases
are characterized by a consistent pattern of allegations of arbitrary arrests, solitary
confinement, acts of torture or ill-treatment during questioning and the subsequent use of
confessions obtained under duress in judicial proceedings. The Committee has already
considered these issues in a series of communications – Asfari v. Morocco, Abbahah v.
Morocco, Laaroussi v. Morocco, Bani v. Morocco, N’Dour v. Morocco and M.B. v. Morocco
– in which it expressed concern about the failure of the authorities to conduct prompt,
impartial and effective investigations into allegations of torture and their ongoing use of
statements obtained under torture as evidence.38 In the present case, the Committee is of the
opinion that the recurrence of these shortcomings indicates not isolated procedural anomalies
but a structural problem in the State Party’s approach to the cases stemming from the
dismantling of the Gdeim Izik camp and a consequent need for the State Party to take urgent
corrective measures to ensure that it fulfils its obligations under the Convention, in addition
to the specific corrective measures listed in paragraph 10.
9.
The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the facts
of which it has been apprised constitute a violation by the State Party of articles 2 (1) and
11–15 of the Convention, read in conjunction with article 1.
10.
The Committee urges the State Party to: (a) initiate a thorough and impartial
investigation into the incidents in question, as required under articles 12 and 13 of the
Convention and in full conformity with the Istanbul Protocol, as revised, with a view to
bringing those responsible for the complainant’s treatment to justice; (b) grant full reparation,
including fair and adequate compensation, to the complainant and provide him with the
means for as full rehabilitation as possible; (c) consider reviewing, in accordance with
domestic legal procedures, the criminal conviction of the complainant, and, if there has been
a violation of article 15 of the Convention, set aside the conviction; (d) refrain from any form
of pressure, intimidation or reprisals likely to be detrimental to the physical and psychological
35 P.E. v. France (CAT/C/29/D/193/2001), para. 6.3, and Ktiti v. Morocco (CAT/C/46/D/419/2010),
para. 8.8.
36 CAT/C/MAR/CO/4, para. 17.
37 Asfari v. Morocco, para. 13.8, Laaroussi v. Morocco, para. 8.10, Bani v. Morocco, para. 7.10, and
M.B. v. Morocco, para. 13.9.
38 See N’Dour v. Morocco (CAT/C/72/D/650/2015), Asfari v. Morocco, Abbahah v. Morocco,
Laaroussi v. Morocco and Bani v. Morocco, para. 7.11.
CAT/C/84/D/1135/2022
GE.26-07213
15
health of the complainant and his family, which would otherwise constitute a violation of
obligations under the Convention to cooperate with the Committee in good faith in the
implementation of the provisions of the Convention; and (e) allow the complainant to be
visited in prison by his family, his lawyer and a doctor of his choosing, as well as to receive
appropriate treatment. The State Party is also under an obligation to take specific preventive
measures to guarantee the non-repetition of such violations.
11.
In accordance with rule 118 (5) of its rules of procedure, the Committee requests the
State Party to inform it, within 90 days of the date of transmittal of the present decision, of
the steps it has taken to respond to the above observations.