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.26-07214 (E) 230626 230626
Committee against Torture
Decision adopted by the Committee under article 22 of the
Convention, concerning communication No. 1136/2022*, **
Communication submitted by:
Mohamed Lamine Haddi (represented by
ACAT-France)
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 15 June 2022 (not issued in
document form)
Date of adoption of decision:
24 April 2026
Subject matter:
Torture in detention
Procedural issue:
Exhaustion of domestic remedies
Substantive issues:
Torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading
punishment or treatment; prevention of torture;
treatment of prisoners; 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 Mohamed Lamine Haddi, a national of Morocco born in Western
Sahara in 1980. 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 15 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) immediately
provide the complainant with adequate medical and psychological care; (b) consider the
possibility of an alternative measure to detention tailored to the complainant’s state of health;
* 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/1136/2022
Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment
Distr.: General
2 June 2026
English
Original: French
CAT/C/84/D/1136/2022
2
GE.26-07214
(c) ensure that the complainant can be visited by a lawyer of his choice; and (d) take
protective measures for the complainant to prevent him from being subjected to reprisals for
having submitted a communication to the Committee.
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 move was to denounce the discrimination
to which Saharans consider themselves to be subjected by the State Party. The complainant
was a photographer and a volunteer correspondent for the radio station of the Sahrawi Arab
Democratic Republic.1
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, in the course of which 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 20 November 2010, at approximately 11.30 a.m., the complainant was arrested by
17 gendarmes, some in plain clothes and others in military uniform, while he was at the Sahari
Hotel to meet with doctors from the organization Médecins sans frontières. They were on
their way to visit a number of victims who had been shot during the dismantling of the camp,
and the complainant was tasked with accompanying them. After his arrest, the complainant
was taken to the Laayoune governorate. During the journey, he was struck on the neck and
head. Once there, he was questioned by four agents, who mainly asked him about his trips to
Algeria and the arrival of international observers. The author’s photograph and fingerprints
were taken. Throughout the day that he spent in the Laayoune governorate, the complainant
was subjected to treatment that caused him severe suffering. He was subjected to torture
methods such as falaka (which involves repeatedly striking the soles of the feet with an iron
bar) and the so-called “roast chicken” method (in which a person is suspended from a metal
bar by the wrists and knees, upside down and in a crouching position).2 He was struck several
times in the neck and head, and still suffers from pains in his ears.
2.4
On the evening of 20 November 2010, the complainant was taken to the headquarters
of the Laayoune Royal Gendarmerie. With his head covered and his hands cuffed, he was
questioned by the gendarmes while being slapped and struck on the back of the neck with
sticks. He was then placed in a cell. The next day, while being questioned, he was blindfolded
and handcuffed. After forcing him to his knees, the officers beat him on the elbows and the
back of the neck with sticks and hit him with a plank on the chest and back, causing him
severe pain. They threw him to the ground, raised his feet using a chain and used the falaka
technique. He was struck several more times on the head and lower limbs with a stick, causing
him to feel dizziness and severe pain. The violence continued throughout the day. When he
was taken back to his cell at the end of the day, he complained of severe pain.
2.5
On 22 November 2010, the complainant was handcuffed and taken to Laayoune Court
of First Instance.3 That afternoon, he was taken back to the Royal Gendarmerie station, where
he was slapped and kicked all over the body by an officer. The officer threatened him and his
family. Next, the complainant was forced to place his fingerprint on a report while
blindfolded. He then spent the night in a cell at the gendarmerie. During the three days that
he spent at the Laayoune Royal Gendarmerie, he was held in inhumane and degrading
conditions: he was not given any food and was forced to urinate on himself.
2.6
On the morning of 23 November 2010, the complainant was taken to the airport,
handcuffed and blindfolded, and put on board a military aircraft. During the flight, an officer
burned the complainant’s right wrist twice with a cigarette and threatened to rape him. Upon
1 He began volunteering at the radio station in 2005.
2 He also claims to have been subjected to the so-called “airplane” method (tayara), without providing
any details.
3 No further details were provided.
CAT/C/84/D/1136/2022
GE.26-07214
3
his arrival in Rabat, he was taken in a vehicle to the Military Court, where he was verbally
abused, slapped, struck on the back of the neck and kicked in the chest. He was then brought
before an investigating judge for the first time. The complainant told the judge that he had
been tortured. The signs of violence were still visible: his hands were covered in blood and
he still had open wounds. He asked the investigating judge to document these visible signs
of torture, to which the judge replied that he was not a doctor. Before the judge, the
complainant denied the charges against him and stated that he had placed his fingerprint on
the report drawn up by the gendarmes without being able to review its contents. He was
kicked repeatedly by the investigating judge’s secretary. According to the complainant’s
mother, the complainant was also struck by the investigating judge and subsequently signed
the report. No investigation into the acts of torture reported by the complainant was initiated
by the investigating judge. The investigating judge issued a detention order.
2.7
Upon arrival at Salé 2 prison, the complainant had his clothes confiscated by prison
officials, who then doused him with water and beat him. He was then photographed naked
and forced to walk barefoot outdoors while being insulted. He was then taken to a
single-person cell, where he noticed that he was bleeding from the ear and had bluish bruises
on his lower limbs.
2.8
The complainant was not told where he was being held. After about 20 days, he
learned that he was in Salé 2 prison. His family was not informed of his detention or where
he was being held. A prisoner told them that their son was at Salé 2. The first visit the
complainant received was from his brother, on 22 December 2010, more than a month after
he was first subjected to acts of torture. His first medical consultation did not take place until
three and a half months after his admission. For four months, the complainant was subjected
to acts of torture in prison. When his mother was finally able to visit him for the first time, in
January 2011, his fingernails had been torn off. When he refused to sing the Moroccan
national anthem or to say “long live the King” he was tortured.4 He spent six months in
solitary confinement in that prison in appalling conditions: he had no mattress to sleep on
and no shoes. His health deteriorated. It was difficult for the complainant to speak out about
the violence inflicted on him and his detention conditions, particularly because guards were
present during his family’s visits.
2.9
On 17 February 2013, on the conclusion of a mass trial of 25 Saharan defendants,
Rabat Military Court sentenced the complainant to 25 years in prison for belonging to a
criminal gang and participating in acts of violence against a public official acting in an official
capacity.5 During the trial, the complainant claimed to have been tortured at the offices of the
Laayoune governorate, at the headquarters of the Laayoune Royal Gendarmerie, during his
transfer by plane to Rabat, at the Military Court and in prison. He also explained that the
statements he had signed had been made under torture and that the investigating judge had
not ordered any medical examination, even though the complainant had wounds that were
still open. However, no investigation into the acts of torture has been launched.6
2.10
On 27 July 2016, the Court of Cassation overturned the judgment of the Military
Court7 and referred the case to the Rabat Court of Appeals.8 A new trial began in January
2017. The complainant reiterated that he had been tortured and was still suffering from the
after-effects of that torture, and that his torturers had not asked him any questions about
Gdeim Izik camp; instead, they had questioned him about his trips to Algeria and the arrival
of international observers. He claimed that he had been forced to place his fingerprint on the
statement without knowing its contents. 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 examinations. These were entrusted to three Moroccan forensic
4 No further details were provided.
5 According to the complainant, this conviction is based almost exclusively on the record of his
questioning, which was falsified and signed under torture.
6 A/HRC/27/48/Add.5, para. 68.
7 The Court of Cassation found that it had not been shown that all the constituent elements of the
offence were present.
8 In the meantime, the law had changed and the crimes for which the trial was being held were no
longer under military jurisdiction.
CAT/C/84/D/1136/2022
4
GE.26-07214
doctors who were not trained in 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, as they were
affiliated with the Court of Appeals.
2.11
On 19 July 2017, the Rabat Court of Appeals upheld the complainant’s 25-year prison
sentence, primarily on the basis of statements signed under torture.9 On 25 November 2020,
the Court of Cassation dismissed the complainant’s appeal.
2.12
On 17 September 2017, the complainant was transferred to Tiflet 2 prison, where he
has been held in solitary confinement for nearly five years: he is confined alone in his cell
for at least 23 hours per day and has no contact with other inmates, with whom he is forbidden
from speaking. This punitive isolation measure has serious consequences for his mental and
physical health. The complainant is permitted only one phone call per week, or every two
weeks, lasting four minutes. He is forbidden from discussing his detention conditions or acts
of violence, under penalty of having the call cut off and facing reprisals. His lawyer has not
been allowed to visit him since the trial ended in 2017, and his mother has not been allowed
to visit him since 2018, that is, for more than four years. The last person who was able to
visit him was his sister, in 2019.
2.13
After the ban on visits imposed in connection with the coronavirus disease
(COVID-19) pandemic was lifted, the complainant’s family continued to face discriminatory
denials of their right to visit. On 1 and 3 March 2021, the complainant’s mother, sister and
brother were denied entry to the prison. On 3 March 2021, they were arrested after attempting
to visit the site and were taken to Tiflet police station, where they were questioned for four
hours. The officers told the complainant’s sister and brother that if their mother hadn’t been
there, they would have disappeared.
2.14
Furthermore, since arriving at Tiflet 2, the complainant has been regularly subjected
to mistreatment and harassment, owing in particular to his Saharan origin. He is regularly
beaten by guards, other prison staff and ordinary prisoners whenever he leaves his cell.
Unlike the other inmates, he can eat only canned food and does not have access to cooked
meals with sufficient nutritional value to maintain his health. The complainant’s cell is often
searched, and the guards sometimes wake him up by splashing cold water on him.
2.15
On 13 January 2021, the complainant began a hunger strike of indefinite duration. On
23 March 2021, after the complainant had been on hunger strike for 69 days, the prison guards
force-fed him through a tube inserted into his nose and gave him three injections of unknown
substances. He did not receive any medical care during or after his hunger strike. After his
hunger strike, his family heard nothing from him for more than 80 days. His family members
did not know where he was or what his state of health was like. In September 2021, the
complainant began another hunger strike and, after 62 days, he was once again force-fed by
prison staff.
2.16
On 15 March 2022, after informing the prison authorities that he intended to begin a
new hunger strike, the complainant was subjected to severe violence. The guards severely
beat him, handcuffed him and pulled out the hairs from his beard with tweezers before
subjecting him to suffocation techniques. He was then left without medical care. He was
forbidden from using the phone for 10 days, until 25 March 2022, when he was allowed to
speak with his family for two minutes under the supervision of prison staff. Since 15 March
2022, he has been beaten daily by prison guards, both inside and outside his cell, particularly
when he asks to call his family. He is also insulted and threatened and is forbidden from
telling his family about the violence inflicted on him. He recently received a death threat
from the head of the prison guards.10
Complaint
3.1
The physical abuse to which the complainant was subjected during his transfer to the
Laayoune governorate and within the governorate’s offices on 20 November 2010, during
9 The court dismissed the charges of participation in the formation of a criminal gang.
10 The complainant provides his name.
CAT/C/84/D/1136/2022
GE.26-07214
5
his detention at the Laayoune Royal Gendarmerie from 20 to 23 November 2010, during his
transfer by plane to Rabat on 23 November 2010, before the investigating judge on
23 November 2010, and during the first months of his detention at Salé 2 prison, all of which
were intended to obtain information, to extract a confession or to punish or intimidate him,
constitute acts of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. The methods
known as falaka and “roast chicken” are in essence acts of torture.11 The complainant also
reports that he was placed in solitary confinement and force-fed through a tube inserted into
his nose to end his hunger strike.12 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.
3.2
The complainant points out that, on 23 November 2010, when he was brought before
the investigating judge, he bore visible signs of torture but the judge did not initiate an
investigation. Similarly, the prosecutor, the Military Court and the Rabat Court of Appeals
did not take into account his allegations regarding acts of torture. It is therefore clear that the
State Party has failed to fulfil its obligations under articles 12 and 13 of the Convention.
Furthermore, the fact that no investigation has been initiated to date 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.
3.3
The complainant alleges a violation of article 15 arising from the fact that the Military
Court in 2013 and the Rabat Court of Appeals in 2017 took into account confessions signed
under torture. Lastly, he alleges a violation of article 16 because of the conditions in which
he was held in custody for three days at Laayoune Royal Gendarmerie, where he was denied
food and water and forced to urinate on himself, and his detention conditions in Salé 2 prison
(where he lacked a mattress for several months) and Tiflet 2 prison (where he was placed in
solitary confinement and subjected to violence by guards).
State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 15 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
complaint, since nearly 12 years had passed since the alleged events.13 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 present complaint, like the seven 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 investigation revealed that he was indeed present in the camp on
8 November 2010 and was among those who organized and orchestrated the atrocious attacks
committed against law enforcement officers. It should be noted that he was identified by the
other defendants who were arrested during the dismantling of the camp. During his hearing,
the complainant voluntarily and spontaneously admitted to having planned, orchestrated and
carried out the acts of aggression against law enforcement officers. At the conclusion of the
11 He also mentions the so-called “airplane” method (tayara), without providing any details.
12 CAT/C/ISR/CO/5, paras. 26 and 27.
13 Gobin v. Mauritius (CCPR/C/72/D/787/1997), para. 6.3.
CAT/C/84/D/1136/2022
6
GE.26-07214
hearing, he himself read his statement and had it remain as it was, without any additions,
deletions or other changes, and affixed his right thumbprint to it.
4.4
The State Party states that the complainant was arrested on 20 November 2010 by the
Laayoune police following the issuance of a search warrant by Laayoune Royal Gendarmerie
on 14 November 2010. On the same day, on the instructions of the public prosecutor’s office,
he was taken into police custody, where he remained until 22 November 2010 (a total of
36 hours).14 Contrary to the claims made in the communication, during police custody, all the
complainant’s rights were respected and his family was notified of his arrest and custody in
a timely manner, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, and as noted in the
gendarmerie’s report.
4.5
The State Party rejects the allegations of torture, which are purely fictitious and serve
no other purpose than to discredit the proceedings and the investigation and to attempt to
exonerate the complainant from the very serious charges brought against him. It points out
that the person concerned never formally filed a specific complaint regarding these
allegations, either when he was in police custody or afterwards, and that, as soon as the Rabat
Court of Appeals became aware of the allegations, it ordered a medical examination. 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. They carried
out medical tests in accordance with the principles and guidelines of the Istanbul Protocol.
Everything possible was done to ensure that the examinations were carried out by highly
qualified, impartial and independent experts who were recognized by the Moroccan courts,
registered with the roll of judicial experts and subject to the supervision of the Rabat Court
of Appeals.
4.6
The State Party affirms that, contrary to the allegations made by the complainant,
according to which Moroccan courts systematically hand down convictions based largely on
confessions obtained by the criminal investigation police, the Code of Criminal Procedure
establishes that reports drawn up by criminal investigation police officers to record offences
and misdemeanours are authoritative unless proven otherwise, while all other reports merely
serve as information subject to the judge’s sovereign discretion.
4.7
With regard to prison conditions, the State Party affirms that the complainant enjoys
all his legal rights at Tiflet 2 prison, where he is currently being held. The allegations of
mistreatment and torture during his detention in Salé 2 prison are completely baseless and
entirely false. Furthermore, it should be noted that the complainant has never filed a
complaint regarding this matter, either with the prison administration or with any other
judicial or extrajudicial body.
4.8
With regard to the allegations concerning prolonged solitary confinement, the State
Party wishes to point out that the complainant has never been held in solitary confinement,
either at Tiflet 2 prison or at any other prison where he was incarcerated. Since his transfer
to Tiflet 2 prison, he has been held in a single-occupancy cell that meets all international
standards regarding surface area, natural light, ventilation and sanitation. The cell is equipped
with a television that receives a number of channels and is located in a wing housing other
inmates. Under no circumstances can his prison conditions be equated with solitary
confinement, which is applied in accordance with criteria that are strictly regulated by law.
Among other things, the complainant is entitled to take a daily walk.
4.9
The State Party points out that, in accordance with the law, inmates who announce
that they are on hunger strike are placed in facilities reserved for hunger-striking inmates
where they and their state of health can be monitored more easily. The placement of prisoners
in such dedicated spaces cannot in any way be considered a disciplinary measure. Throughout
this period, the complainant underwent extensive medical monitoring.
4.10
With regard to the claims that the complainant’s family members were unable to
contact him, the State Party affirms that these allegations are false, as the complainant can
14 Under article 68 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, detention in police custody may last for up to
48 hours, after which it may be extended for a further 24 hours for the purposes of the investigation.
CAT/C/84/D/1136/2022
GE.26-07214
7
exercise his right to use the prison telephone to communicate with a list of people of his
choosing, making up to three calls per week. His last phone call − with his mother − was on
5 December 2022. He also receives visits, the most recent of which was from his brother on
13 September 2022. In addition, he received visits from the Deputy Crown Prosecutor at
Tiflet Court of First Instance on 16 March 2022 and the Regional Human Rights Commission
on 17 May 2022. No request for a visit from his lawyer has been recorded.
4.11
As for the allegation that the complainant was beaten by several employees and
ill-treated, the State Party affirms that the administration of Tiflet 2 prison forwarded his
complaint to the crown prosecutor at Tiflet Court of First Instance, who ordered an
investigation to be opened. The investigation found no evidence that the complainant had
been subjected to torture or ill-treatment and the complaint was dismissed.
4.12
Lastly, the State Party points out that, contrary to the false claim about the alleged
deterioration of the complainant’s health and the denial of access to necessary medical care,
in order to follow up on his complaint of 15 March 2022, in which he claimed to have been
the victim of physical violence,15 a medical examination was conducted by the facility’s
doctor that revealed nothing of note. In fact, no injuries or marks were found. The
complainant also complained of epigastric pain; he was therefore prescribed medication and
a special diet, and serological tests were performed. Since his incarceration, the complainant
has received 75 in-house medical consultations for common symptoms, for which
appropriate treatments16 were prescribed, and 35 dental consultations. 17 On 24 February
2022, the complainant refused to attend hospital for a urology appointment and, on
7 December 2022, he refused to attend an ophthalmology appointment. Currently, his general
state of health is good.
Complainant’s comments on the State Party’s observations
5.1
On 27 September 2023, the complainant submitted his comments on the State Party’s
observations. With regard to the question of the abuse of rights, the complainant argues that
his complaint concerns not only the violations to which he was subjected in 2010 and at the
time of his arrest, but also violations that began when he was placed in detention, initially in
Salé 2 prison and then in Tiflet 2 prison, and which are ongoing, as well as the decision of
25 November 2020, by which the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Rabat Court
of Appeals despite the irregularities observed and the use of confessions obtained under
torture. He points out that his confession was obtained under duress after he had spent three
days being subjected to numerous acts of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment. He
himself denied the charges against him during his hearing before the investigating judge on
23 November 2010. During the various trials, the confessions obtained under duress were the
only evidence directly incriminating the complainant, just as the confessions of his co-
defendants were the only evidence incriminating them.18
5.2
The complainant states that, contrary to the State Party’s claim, several complaints
have been filed, in addition to the one mentioned by the State Party. The complainant’s family
filed several complaints about the mistreatment that he suffered, which were reportedly
forwarded to the Crown Prosecutor and the National Human Rights Council of Morocco up
to 2021. The complainant himself filed complaints on several occasions with the Crown
Prosecutor, the Minister of Justice, the authority responsible for prisons and the National
Human Rights Council. He has reportedly submitted more than fifty complaints to date.19
5.3
On the merits, the complainant points out that he had reported the acts of torture to
the investigating judge and to the Military Court, but this did not result in an investigation
being launched. It was not until more than six years after the events that the presiding judge
of the criminal chamber of the Rabat Court of Appeals agreed to the conduct of a medical
examination, without a proper investigation having been initiated, which constituted an
implicit acknowledgement of the failure of previous Moroccan judges to investigate the
15 Blows to the face and the left side of the neck.
16 The most recent dates from 29 November 2022.
17 The most recent dates from 2 December 2022.
18 Human Rights Watch, Morocco: Tainted Trial of Sahrawi Civilians, 1 April 2013.
19 No further details were provided.
CAT/C/84/D/1136/2022
8
GE.26-07214
complainant’s allegations of torture. The complainant also raises questions about the
conditions in which this medical examination was conducted.20
5.4
With regard to the State Party’s claim that the complainant was never held in solitary
confinement but was subject to a single-occupancy cell regime, the distinction the State Party
seeks to make is irrelevant in the light of the criteria set out in rule 44 of the United Nations
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules), which
defines solitary confinement as “the confinement of prisoners for 22 hours or more a day
without meaningful human contact” and prolonged solitary confinement as “solitary
confinement for a time period in excess of 15 consecutive days.” The complainant is held in
solitary confinement for at least 23 hours per day and has no contact with other inmates,
which the State Party does not dispute. It is therefore clear that this prolonged and indefinitely
extended solitary confinement, which has now lasted six years, does not meet the safeguards
required by the Committee.21
5.5
With regard to the complainant’s right to communicate with his family members, the
information provided by the State Party does not reflect the actual situation. Currently, the
complainant is allowed no more than two 4-minute phone calls per week. His calls are
regularly cancelled as a form of reprisal, as occurred in 2021 when he was on hunger strike.
He is also prohibited from speaking about his detention conditions and the violence to which
he is subjected, at the risk of having his communication cut off and being subjected to other
forms of reprisal. Contrary to the State Party’s claims, the complainant’s letters are always
rejected and none of them has ever reached his family, even when his right to communicate
by telephone was suspended.
5.6
The complainant points out that Tiflet 2 prison is located approximately 1,200 km
from his usual place of residence and his family in Laayoune, which makes the trip long and
costly for his family members and significantly undermines his effective right to receive
visits from them. However, there is a prison in Laayoune and others in the surrounding area
from which it would be possible to maintain family ties. His incarceration at such a distance
from his family members is evidence of the discriminatory and punitive treatment directed
against him. Contrary to the State Party’s claim, the complainant has been regularly
requesting to see his lawyer since 2017. His requests have always been denied, and his lawyer
is also barred from entering Morocco.
5.7
With regard to his hunger strikes, the complainant notes that the State Party does not
deny that he was force-fed by prison staff to end his two hunger strikes, despite the fact that
a guide published jointly in June 2021 by the General Delegation for Prison Administration
and Reintegration and the National Human Rights Council stated that this practice was
prohibited and could amount to torture.
5.8
Contrary to the State Party’s claims, the complainant’s state of health is a cause for
serious concern. As a result of the torture and ill-treatment that he has endured, the conditions
of his prolonged solitary confinement, his insufficient and poor-quality food and the various
hunger strikes that he has undertaken, his physical and psychological health is of particular
concern. In particular, he suffers from a constant discharge of pus from his left ear, pain in
the right side of his back and in his right leg, asthma, hypersensitivity in the ear, nose and
throat region, urinary incontinence, and pain in the stomach, kidneys and joints. His brother
said that he did not recognize him during his visit on 7 February 2023 because his physical
condition had deteriorated so much.
5.9
The complainant does not dispute that he has been seen by the prison’s medical service
and treated on a number of occasions, but he states that merely accessing the prison’s medical
service is not sufficient to properly treat the various medical conditions from which he
suffers. It should be noted that the State Party has failed to indicate that, in order for the
complainant to be allowed to receive appropriate medical care and treatment from medical
specialists outside the prison, the Moroccan authorities require him to renounce his status as
a political prisoner, including in public statements made by his family members, and to agree
20 National Human Rights Council, Les activités médico-légales au Maroc : la nécessité d’une réforme
globale, June 2013, p. 45; and A/HRC/22/53/Add.2.
21 CAT/C/51/4, para. 32; Abbahah v. Morocco (CAT/C/72/D/871/2018), para. 11.2.
CAT/C/84/D/1136/2022
GE.26-07214
9
to wear the uniform of an ordinary prisoner with a criminal conviction. The complainant has
always refused to comply with these conditions and, as a result, has been deprived of the
medical care and treatment that he needs for his various medical conditions. The stance taken
by the Moroccan authorities appears to be yet another indication of their desire to punish the
complainant for his views and his activism.
5.10
Lastly, the complainant states that he went on hunger strike from 9–18 August 2023
to protest about his detention conditions and the lack of access to medical care and treatment
appropriate for his numerous medical conditions. He ended his hunger strike after the Crown
Prosecutor and the prison director visited him and assured him that he would receive the
necessary medical care. At the time of writing, however, he reportedly still has not received
appropriate medical treatment.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Consideration of admissibility
6.1
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.
6.2
The Committee notes that the State Party contends that the complaint 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
Convention nor the Committee’s rules of procedure establish a time limit for submitting a
complaint. In any event, the Committee 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 concerning torture or his detention
conditions at the time of submission of the communication to the Committee, which does not
constitute an abuse of the right of submission under article 22 (2) of the Convention.
6.3
With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee notes the State
Party’s argument that the complainant did not formally raise the allegations of torture with
the competent authorities. However, the Committee notes the complainant’s response that he
was bearing visible signs of torture when he appeared before the military investigating judge
on 23 November 2010 and that he asked the judge to document these clearly visible marks
on his body. The judge refused to do so, however, and did not put the facts on record or
launch an investigation. The Military Court also failed to take into account the complainant’s
allegations of torture when it convicted him. However, the Committee notes that allegations
of torture appear in the trial transcripts of the Rabat Military Court. At no time, however, did
the authorities launch an investigation. In addition, the Committee notes that, after he was
arrested, the complainant was not permitted to consult a doctor of his choosing who would
have provided sufficient guarantees of independence from the prison system.
6.4
In the absence of any pertinent information from the State Party in this regard, the
Committee concludes that the State Party’s claim that the complaint is inadmissible on
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.22 The
Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under
article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention.
6.5
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 of the claims with respect to
articles 12–15 of the Convention, read in conjunction with article 1, and with respect to
article 16.
22 Laaroussi v. Morocco (CAT/C/74/D/891/2018), para. 7.5.
CAT/C/84/D/1136/2022
10
GE.26-07214
Consideration of the merits
7.1
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.
7.2
The Committee notes the complainant’s allegation that the physical abuse he suffered
after his arrest, during his transfer to the Laayoune governorate and at the governorate’s
offices, during his detention at the Laayoune Royal Gendarmerie, during his transfer by plane
to Rabat and before the investigating judge, as well as during the first months of his detention
at Salé 2 prison, constitute acts of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention.
It also notes that, on 23 November 2010, the complainant, not represented by counsel and
bearing visible signs of torture, about which he made explicit allegations on that day, was
brought before an investigating judge of the Military Court and subsequently before the
Military Court, which did not order any investigation into these allegations of torture. The
Committee further notes the complainant’s allegations that he was subjected, among other
things, to the so-called falaka and “roast chicken” methods, which are, by their very nature,
methods of torture and that, during his imprisonment at Salé 2 prison, his fingernails were
torn out. According to the State Party, the complainant did not formally raise the allegations
of torture before the competent authorities. The Committee also notes 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.
7.3
The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that this medical assessment was not
conducted – as required under, for example, the Istanbul Protocol – by independent and
impartial physicians. In this regard, the Committee notes that, during the trial relating to the
dismantling of the Gdeim Izik camp, 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 who had conducted the
assessments 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 identical.23 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. The Committee also notes 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 to have been taken into account.24
7.4
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.25 The Committee also notes
the solitary confinement imposed on the complainant 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.26 Taking into account 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 claims to
23 Laaroussi v. Morocco, para. 8.2.
24 Laaroussi v. Morocco, para. 8.2; and M.B. v. Morocco (CAT/C/72/D/923/2019), para. 13.2.
25 See Committee Against Torture, general comment No. 2 (2007).
26 CAT/C/51/4, para. 32.
CAT/C/84/D/1136/2022
GE.26-07214
11
have endured following his arrest, during his questioning and while he was in detention
constitute torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention.27
7.5
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,
which has not been disputed by the State Party, also constitutes acts of torture, namely: (a) the
deplorable sanitary conditions during his police custody at the Laayoune Royal Gendarmerie
and in Salé 2 prison; (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. Accordingly, the Committee does not consider it necessary to examine separately the
claims under article 16 of the Convention.28
7.6
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 23 November
2010 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 raise the allegations of torture before 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 underwent 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 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.29
7.7
The Committee also notes that no medical examination was ordered by the
investigating judge of the Military Court, even though the complainant bore clear signs of
physical abuse, and 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 further notes 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.30
7.8
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. 31 The Committee notes that article 13
27 Asfari v. Morocco (CAT/C/59/D/606/2014), para. 13.2; Abbahah v. Morocco, 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.
28 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.
29 Laaroussi v. Morocco, para. 8.6; Bani v. Morocco, para. 7.6; and M.B. v. Morocco, para. 13.6.
30 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.
31 Bendib v. Algeria (CAT/C/51/D/376/2009), para. 6.6.
CAT/C/84/D/1136/2022
12
GE.26-07214
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.32 The Committee concludes that the facts of the
case also constitute a violation of article 13 of the Convention.33
7.9
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.34 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, despite the State Party’s claims, 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.35
7.10
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 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 invoked in
proceedings under its jurisdiction were not obtained through torture.36 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
assess the contents of the complainant’s allegations, 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,37 it expressed concern
about the fact that, under the State Party’s current system of investigation, confessions are
32 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.
33 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.
34 Bendib v. Algeria, para. 6.7.
35 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.
36 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.
37 CAT/C/MAR/CO/4, para. 17.
CAT/C/84/D/1136/2022
GE.26-07214
13
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.38
7.11
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.39 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 9.
8.
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 12–15 of the
Convention, read in conjunction with article 1.
9.
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 the
State Party’s 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 health of the complainant and his family, 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
(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.
10.
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.
38 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.
39 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.