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.26-07218 (E) 190626 190626
Committee against Torture
Decision adopted by the Committee under article 22 of the
Convention, concerning communication No. 1156/2022*, **
Communication submitted by:
Ahmed Sbaï (represented by counsel,
France Weyl)
Alleged victim:
The complainant
State Party:
Morocco
Date of complaint:
8 November 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 23 November 2022 (not
issued in document form)
Date of adoption of decision:
17 April 2026
Subject matter:
Torture in detention
Procedural issues:
Exhaustion of domestic remedies; substantiation
of claims
Substantive issues:
Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment; prevention of torture;
treatment of prisoners; impartial investigation;
right to complain; right to redress
Articles of the Convention:
1 and 12–16
1.1
The complainant is Ahmed Sbaï, a national of Morocco born in 1978 in Western
Sahara. He claims that the State Party has violated his rights under articles 1 and 12–16 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 23 November 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) allow him to be visited by a doctor
of his choosing; and (c) provide him with access to the medical treatment required by his
* 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, 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 to 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/1156/2022
Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment
Distr.: General
4 June 2026
English
Original: French
CAT/C/84/D/1156/2022
2
GE.26-07218
condition so as to prevent any irreparable harm while the Committee is considering the
complaint.
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, including Gdeim Izik, a camp in the vicinity of Laayoune,
located on the outskirts of towns. The aim of this move was to denounce the discrimination
that Saharans consider themselves to be subjected to by the State Party. The complainant was
a member of the Frente Popular para la Liberación de Saguía el-Hamra y de Río de Oro, the
Asociación Saharaui para la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos and the Liga para la
Protección de los Presos Saharauis.1
2.2
On 8 November 2010, Moroccan army personnel, equipped 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 evacuated, clashes, during which
Moroccan soldiers were reportedly killed, broke out between the army and Saharan
demonstrators. A violent wave of repression led by the Moroccan security forces and
supported by Moroccan civilians residing in Saharan territory ensued.
2.3
At around 1 p.m. on 8 December 2010,2 the complainant was abducted in the centre
of Laayoune by five men from the security forces who were wearing plain clothes and masks
and travelling in an unmarked black car. He was taken, blindfolded, to the Royal
Gendarmerie headquarters in Laayoune. On the way there, a trip of between 15 and
20 minutes, he was beaten, insulted and threatened by his abductors. He was then held at the
Gendarmerie headquarters for five days, handcuffed and still blindfolded; he was beaten,
threatened and refused food and water.
2.4
During those five days, the complainant, still handcuffed and blindfolded, was taken
outside the city on several occasions. After being stripped, he was attacked by dogs used to
torture him. The gendarmes who were interrogating and abusing him included a colonel he
recognized. 3 He was questioned several times without being allowed the assistance of
counsel. The gendarmes asked him mostly about his trips to Algeria and the arrival of
international observers. Since he was blindfolded, he was unable to read the purported
confession he was made to sign. He did not receive medical assistance.
2.5
On 12 December 2010, the complainant, handcuffed and blindfolded, was taken to the
airport, where he boarded a military aircraft. During the flight, he was told that he would be
thrown out of the plane. Upon arriving in Rabat, he was taken by vehicle to the Military
Court, where he was verbally abused and beaten. During the preliminary interrogation before
the investigating judge of the Rabat Military Court, the complainant denied all the charges
against him and, as confirmed in the official record, stated that, while being questioned by
the criminal investigation police of Laayoune, he had affixed his fingerprint to the register,
thereby confirming that he had been unable to read the official record himself or to contest
the allegations contained therein. The investigating judge did not open an investigation of
any sort into the acts of torture reported to him by the complainant.
2.6
On 13 December 2010, the complainant was incarcerated in the prison Salé 2. He did
not receive a visit from his family until several weeks after being arrested and was not told
where he was being held. After about 20 days, he learned that he was being held in Salé 2.
The family was not informed of the detention or the place of detention of the complainant.
The first visitors the complainant received were his mother and sister, who, noting that he
was handcuffed and blindfolded and had had his head shaved, saw the marks left by the
torture that he had been subjected to. Furthermore, the complainant was examined by a doctor
only several months after being arrested, not at the time of his incarceration.
1 He claims to have been convicted on political grounds on two occasions – once in 2002, when he was
sentenced to 10 years in prison before being released in 2004, and again in 2006, when he was
arrested and imprisoned for 18 months in Laayoune – but provides no further detail.
2 It is noted in the State Party’s comments below and a letter dated 31 January 2013, sent by the
complainant’s lawyer to the Military Court, that the complainant was arrested on 9 December 2010.
3 The complainant provides the colonel’s name.
CAT/C/84/D/1156/2022
GE.26-07218
3
2.7
The complainant was also subjected to torture while in prison. He spent several
months in solitary confinement, a punitive and discriminatory measure taken in response to
his presence at the Gdeim Izik camp. He was held in appalling conditions: for six months, he
had no mattress to sleep on and no shoes. His health has deteriorated, and he is not given the
appropriate care. It was difficult for the complainant to report the abuse and the conditions
of his detention, in particular because guards were present during visits from his family
members or when he called them. To protest the conditions in which he was imprisoned, the
ill-treatment that he was subjected to and the lack of visits from his family, the complainant,
together with his fellow defendants, went on hunger strike from 19 March to 9 April 2011,
from 31 October to 7 December 2011 and from 1 to 31 March 2016, in addition to some
20 hunger strikes of 48 hours each. Each of these hunger strikes led to his being subjected to
ill-treatment by the prison authorities. The complainant remained in custody at Salé 2 prison
until 31 August 2016 and was then transferred to El Arjat Prison, where he remained until
16 September 2017, before being transferred to Kénitra Central Prison, where he is currently
being held.
2.8
On 17 February 2013, the Rabat Military Court, at the conclusion of a joint trial of
25 Saharan defendants, sentenced the complainant to life imprisonment for having joined a
criminal gang and taken part in acts of violence committed against a public official acting in
an official capacity.4 During the trial, the complainant stressed his alarming state of health
first-hand and asserted that had had been subjected to physical and psychological torture and
that he knew who his torturers were. He also explained that the statements he had signed had
been signed under torture. However, no investigation into the acts of torture was opened.5
2.9
On 27 July 2016, the Court of Cassation overturned the judgment of the Military
Court6 and referred the case to the Rabat Court of Appeals.7 A new trial began in January
2017. The complainant reiterated that he had been tortured and was still suffering from the
effects of that torture and that his torturers had not asked him any questions about the Gdeim
Izik camp; they had questioned him instead about his trips to Algeria and the arrival of
international observers. He claimed that he had been forced to sign the statement using a
fingerprint but without knowing what was in it, and he refused to answer any questions about
the falsified statements obtained as a result of torture. 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, 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 independence8 were entrusted
with these assessments. The complainant therefore refused to submit to these assessments.
The results of these assessments were later presented by the defendants’ lawyers to four
doctors, nationals of France and Spain, who produced second opinions concluding that the
Istanbul Protocol had not been followed.
2.10
On 19 July 2017, the Rabat Court of Appeals, drawing chiefly on the statements
signed under torture, upheld the conviction of the complainant. On 25 November 2020, the
Court of Cassation dismissed the complainant’s appeal on points of law.
2.11
The complainant has been in solitary confinement since the 2017 ruling. He is held
alone in his cell for at least 23 hours a day, with no contact with other inmates, whom he is
forbidden to speak to. This punitive solitary confinement has serious consequences for his
mental and physical health. He is allowed only a four-minute phone call either once a week
4 According to the complainant, this conviction is based almost exclusively on the verbatim record of
the hearing, which was falsified and signed under torture.
5 A/HRC/27/48/Add.5, para. 68.
6 The Court of Cassation found that it had not been shown that all the constituent elements of the
offence were present.
7 In the meantime, the law had changed, and the crimes for which the trial was being held were no
longer under military jurisdiction.
8 As they were attached to the Court of Appeals.
CAT/C/84/D/1156/2022
4
GE.26-07218
or once every two weeks. If he discusses the conditions of his detention or the violence he is
subjected to, the call is cut off and he will face reprisals. His lawyer has apparently not been
allowed to visit him since the trial ended in 2017.
2.12
The complainant is regularly subjected to ill-treatment and harassment, in particular
because he is Saharan. He is frequently beaten by the guards and other prison staff, as well
as by inmates serving sentences for common crimes, when he leaves his cell. He can eat only
canned food, has no access to cooked meals of sufficient nutritional value to stay healthy and
is not allowed to receive food from his family, unlike other inmates. The complainant’s cell
is often searched, and the guards rouse him by splashing cold water on him.
Complaint
3.1
The physical abuse that, with a view to obtaining information, extracting a confession
or punishing or intimidating him, the complainant was subjected to on being arrested in
Laayoune on 8 December 2010, while in the custody of the Royal Gendarmerie in Laayoune
from 8 to 12 December 2010, during his transfer by plane to Rabat, before the investigating
judge on 12 December 2010 and while incarcerated in Salé 2, El Arjat and Kénitra constitutes
torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. The complainant mentions being
punched and kicked and being hit with a stick, as well as the very long time he has been in
solitary confinement. The acts and treatment that he has endured constitute, at the very least,
forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment such as those set out in
article 16.
3.2
The complainant contends that the refusal of the investigating judge, the prosecution,
the Military Court and the Rabat Court of Appeals to conduct, despite the visible signs of
violence he bore, an impartial investigation into the allegations of torture that he had made
on several occasions constitutes a violation of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention. What is
more, the ongoing failure to initiate an investigation is preventing him, in breach of article 14
of the Convention, from benefiting from measures of rehabilitation, compensation and
support, as well as guarantees of non-repetition.
3.3
The complainant contends that article 15 was violated in 2013, when the Military
Court admitted as evidence confessions signed under torture, and in 2017, when the Rabat
Court of Appeals did likewise. Lastly, he invokes a violation of article 16 as a result of the
conditions in which he was held at the Royal Gendarmerie headquarters in Laayoune – that
is, without food or water and being forced to urinate on himself – as well as the conditions
of his incarceration in Salé 2, where he went several months without a mattress.
State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 23 May 20239 and 23 March 2026, the State Party submitted its comments. It notes
that this complaint is the ninth related to the dismantling of the Gdeim Izik camp to be
submitted to the Committee and asserts that it is inadmissible. It points out that the
complainant has provided no concrete evidence for his allegations of torture and ill-treatment,
as confirmed by the fact that he never raised any allegations, either before the prosecutor or
before the investigating judge, about his arrest or about the torture that he claims to have
endured. On 27 May 2011, on the contrary, the complainant, speaking in the presence of his
lawyer, told the investigating judge, as shown in the record of the interrogation signed by the
complainant, that he had not been subjected to any coercive measures or violence during the
investigations conducted by the criminal investigation police of the Royal Gendarmerie in
Laayoune. He also confirmed before the Rabat Court of Appeals that he had signed the record
of the interrogation in the presence of his lawyer during his appearance before the
investigating judge.10
4.2
The State Party asserts that the complainant has never reported to the prosecution, the
investigating judge or the court that he has been subjected to ill-treatment and beatings by
9 On 10 January 2025, the State Party submitted an English translation of its comments dated 23 May
2023, which had been submitted in Arabic.
10 The State Party submits the verbatim record of the interrogation; the record was prepared by the
investigating judge and is dated 3 June 2011.
CAT/C/84/D/1156/2022
GE.26-07218
5
prison officers and by other inmates. It points out that, in the complaint he submitted to the
Committee, the complainant did not provide any information on the steps he has taken to
exhaust domestic remedies in respect of these allegations or indicate the dates or results of
any such steps that may have been taken. Nor did he explain why an exception to the
requirement to exhaust domestic remedies should be made for him. The State Party also notes
that, like four other co-defendants, the complainant refused to submit to the medical
assessment ordered by the Court of Appeals because, in his view, the appointed doctors did
not offer the required guarantees of independence and were not authorized to perform
assessments or confirm what had happened as required under the Istanbul Protocol. This
refusal prevented the Court from ascertaining whether his allegations were true.
4.3
The State Party notes that court-ordered medical assessments are an effective means
of determining the veracity of allegations of torture or ill-treatment. It points out that the
complainant seems to be taking a selective and inconsistent approach to evaluating the second
opinion commissioned by the defendants’ lawyers. In fact, the complainant objects to having
the assessment take place six years after the alleged facts, suggesting that this passage of time
undermines the assessment’s probative value. At the same time, however, he accepts the
international second opinions based on the results of the Moroccan medical assessments and
considers them reliable, despite their having been produced after the very lapse of time that
he finds fault with. The complainant is clearly relying on double standards to call into
question the national procedures used to investigate allegations of torture.
4.4
The State Party, addressing the merits of the claims, notes that in Kénitra Central
Prison, where he is currently incarcerated, the complainant is housed in a single-occupancy
cell that complies with international norms for the treatment of prisoners and the United
Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules)
and is located in a wing that houses other prisoners, including his fellow defendants. He has
the right to daily recreation time, during which he participates in sporting activities. He has
access to a landline on which, three times a week, he can contact his family. His claims to
the contrary notwithstanding, family visits have always taken place without restrictions or
difficulties. As a result of the physical distance between the complainant’s family’s home
and the prison, visits are longer and more frequent than those other prisoners are allowed. In
an exception to the usual rules, the complainant is permitted to have items such as toiletries
and perfume, as well as tea and local food, sent to him by his family, even though the prison
provides inmates with three meals a day prepared by a specialized private firm. In addition,
he has the right to communicate with his defence team: on 7 July 2025, he received a visit
from his three lawyers.
4.5
The State Party explains that the complainant cannot be transferred to his family’s
home region because he was given a life sentence and the prisons in that region are not
designed for inmates serving such sentences. The authorities of the prison where the
complainant is incarcerated have, in the circumstances, shown great flexibility in managing
his family visits, both in terms of their duration and frequency and in terms of who is
authorized to visit him.
4.6
The State Party asserts that there are no legal grounds for any of the complainant’s
claims, which are disproved by the facts. It points out that the complainant was not, as he
claims, arbitrarily arrested on 8 December 2010 and abducted by five masked men; in fact,
he was arrested, pursuant to an arrest warrant dated 13 November 2010, by the criminal
investigation police of Laayoune on 9 December 2010 and taken into police custody at
11 a.m. of the same day, as confirmed by the 9 December 2010 report drawn up by the
criminal investigation police and by the order to take him into custody. Furthermore, the
allegation that the complainant was held at the Royal Gendarmerie headquarters for five days
is false – he was in custody for only 47 hours, a period of time that is in accordance with the
law. 11 The complainant’s family was informed of his placement in police custody and
subsequently of his appearance before the public prosecutor, in accordance with the Code of
11 The legally authorized period of police custody, as set forth in article 66 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, is 48 hours.
CAT/C/84/D/1156/2022
6
GE.26-07218
Criminal Procedure. A day later, he was brought before the military investigating judge, who
ordered that he be placed in pretrial detention on 12 December 2010.
4.7
The State Party asserts that the detailed record of the interrogation conducted in the
presence of the complainant’s lawyer by the military investigating judge on 3 June 2011
shows that the complainant stated that he had not been subjected to any form of coercion or
violence during the investigation conducted by the Royal Gendarmerie. He stated that he had
never been subjected to any form of coercion. This statement is corroborated by the fact that
the complainant, assisted by counsel, confirmed and signed the record of his interrogation
before the Court of Appeals. During the joint trial in the Rabat Court of Appeals, the
complainant and his lawyer claimed that he had been tortured and requested that a tripartite
committee be entrusted with a medical assessment. The Court granted this request and
ordered a medical and psychological assessment, but the complainant, like four other
defendants, refused to submit to the assessment, a refusal that prevented the Court from
determining the truth of his allegations. A committee chaired by a professor of forensic
medicine had nonetheless, as requested by the defence, been entrusted with the assessment.
4.8
With regard to the complainant’s claim that the Rabat Court of Appeals based its
conviction on preliminary statements made as a result of torture, the State Party asserts that
all guarantees of a fair trial were fully respected. The complainant’s assertions to the contrary
notwithstanding, the Court did not rely on a single piece of evidence; it relied instead on a
body of solid evidence of the complainant’s conduct, including the findings of the criminal
investigation police, oral evidence from two camp residents who were not law enforcement
officials, telephone recordings, video recordings and autopsy reports. The State Party also
specifies that the reports prepared by criminal investigation officers in criminal cases are, in
accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, considered mere information.
4.9
With regard to the allegation that, more than 12 years after the torture the complainant
claims to have endured while in police custody, no serious investigation has been conducted
and that he has been denied his right to redress, the State Party notes that the complainant
refused to submit to the medical assessment ordered, at his lawyer’s request, by the Rabat
Court of Appeals. In view of this refusal, there was no reasonable ground to believe that the
complainant was a victim of torture, in accordance with article 12 of the Convention.
4.10
The State Party emphasizes that the complainant never reported to the public
prosecutor’s office, the investigating judge or the trial court, either in person or through his
lawyer, that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by prison officers or by other inmates. No
information about such incidents has ever been reported to the prosecutor’s office, even
though any such report would have prompted, as required under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, an investigation. Furthermore, the prison authorities confirm that these allegations
are unfounded and that the complainant has never been subjected to ill-treatment.
4.11
The State Party asserts that the complainant was questioned by the military
investigating judge on 12 December 2010, and that, on the same day, the judge ordered that
he be taken into pretrial detention at the local prison, Salé 2. The official record of the
preliminary interrogation, signed by the complainant, confirms that he was fully aware of
where he was to be detained. The prison family visit log shows that, on 17 December 2010,
five days after his admission to the prison, the complainant received a visit from his mother
and sister.
4.12
The State Party contests the claim that complainant was in solitary confinement for
several months in Salé 2 and asserts that in fact he has never been subjected to solitary
confinement. It specifies that the complainant has been placed in a single-occupancy cell
containing the same amenities as all other cells and that he has not been subjected to any
punitive or discriminatory measures. Lastly, despite what the complainant claims, he receives
medical care whenever he needs it and whenever he requests it, whether at the prison or in a
public hospital.12 He is currently in good general health.
12 The State Party mentions the medical consultations and procedures that have been arranged for the
complainant.
CAT/C/84/D/1156/2022
GE.26-07218
7
Complainant’s comments on the State Party’s observations
5.1
On 27 November 2025 and 3 April 2026, the complainant submitted his comments on
the State Party’s observations. He informed the Committee that the State Party had not taken
any of the requested interim measures. With regard to the claim that his communication is
inadmissible, the complainant submits that the State Party merely makes unsubstantiated
assertions, referring only to judicial decisions that, as has been amply demonstrated, have
been handed down after unfair and flawed proceedings, meaning that they cannot be
considered evidence of anything. It is, of course, impossible for the complainant, like the
other complainants whose cases are currently being considered by the Committee or who
have submitted communications on which the Committee has already adopted a decision,13
to provide concrete evidence of the circumstances of his arrest, his detention at the Royal
Gendarmerie headquarters or his transfer to Rabat.
5.2
The complainant states that he was abducted off the street on 8 December 2010, not,
as the State Party claims, on 9 December. There is no official record confirming the supposed
end of his time in police custody – on 11 December 2010 – or his appearance before the
investigating judge in Rabat on 12 December 2010. The complainant then reiterates that the
investigating judge did not open an investigation into the torture that he had made a report of
to the judge, even though the State Party should have opened an impartial and adversarial
investigation as soon as the first allegation of ill-treatment was made.
5.3
The complainant argues that the independence of the commission responsible for the
medical assessment was compromised from the outset, 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 evidenced by the findings set out in their
reports, which reveal a clear lack of understanding of the required methodology, as the
subjects’ medical histories were not reviewed in depth, previous statements were not taken
into account and there was no comprehensive clinical examination of old lesions or a detailed
psychological assessment. The interviews conducted by the doctors were too brief to enable
a thorough examination of such serious matters. Lastly, these medical assessments took place
more than six years after the alleged events, considerably lessening their probative value.
5.4
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
between the observed sequelae and the acts of torture that had been described. In these second
opinions, it is emphasized that, in the Moroccan medical assessments, there were serious
methodological flaws and that the Moroccan doctors failed to take notice of visible lesions,
did not take the context of the initial detention into account and lacked impartiality.
5.5
The complainant states that the most recent visit he received from his family took
place on 29 August 2025. His family members are forced to travel more than 1,400 km from
their homes to reach the place where he is being held, a journey that places a heavy financial
and emotional burden on them. In addition, the Moroccan authorities monitor and harass his
family by keeping the family home under constant surveillance, causing fear and
psychological trauma.14
5.6
Since 16 September 2017, the complainant has been denied his right to medical care,
even though he has chronic health problems, including heart and arterial problems, vision
problems and allergies. He was never allowed to go to the hospital to see specialists, despite
the numerous complaints that have been lodged and several hunger strikes that have been
staged to protest negligent treatment. He is allowed to leave the prison for the hospital only
if he agrees to be transported in humiliating conditions – namely, on condition that he have
13 Asfari v. Morocco (CAT/C/59/D/606/2014), N’Dour v. Morocco (CAT/C/72/D/650/2015), Abbahah
v. Morocco (CAT/C/72/D/871/2018) and M.B. v. Morocco (CAT/C/72/D/923/2019). See also
A/HRC/WGAD/2023/23.
14 No further detail is provided.
CAT/C/84/D/1156/2022
8
GE.26-07218
his hands cuffed behind his back or that he wear a garment bearing the word “prisoner”.
These actions and conditions are a form of abasement, a practice that is a violation of a
fundamental right protected by all human rights instruments, including the Convention.
5.7
In the prison, the conditions under which medical examinations take place are
unsatisfactory, especially since the complainant is incarcerated in a high-security wing in
which special measures are taken to restrict movement and contact with the outside world.
Lastly, the complainant mentions recurring delays, sometimes lasting more than a week, in
obtaining the medication prescribed by the prison doctor, contradicting the State Party’s
claim that he receives the medical care he needs. These delays worsen his health and subject
him to constant pain. He is sometimes given expired medication and suffers the consequences
of the prison’s lack of the medical equipment needed for medical tests.
5.8
The complainant is confined to a single-occupancy cell, an inhumane situation
incompatible with the Nelson Mandela Rules. The food he is served does not meet the
requirements of a balanced diet, worsening his physical condition. He is allowed contact with
other inmates for only an hour a day, and he is allowed to use the phone only twice a week.
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 claims that the complaint is inadmissible for
evident want of merit and failure to exhaust domestic remedies. First, it notes that, for a
communication to be admissible under article 22 of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of its
rules of procedure, it must rise to the basic level of substantiation required for purposes of
admissibility. In this case, the Committee is of the opinion that, for admissibility purposes,
the complainant has substantiated his allegations sufficiently.
6.3
With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee takes note of the
State Party’s argument that the complainant did not formally raise the allegations of torture
with the competent authorities. It notes, however, that on 12 December 2010, the complainant
reported the torture that he had endured to the military investigating judge but that the judge
did not include that report in an official record or open an investigation. Subsequently, the
Military Court, too, failed to take into account the complainant’s allegations of torture when
it convicted him. The Committee notes, however, that the allegations of torture are mentioned
in the record of the hearing, dated 8 February 2013, at the Rabat Military Court. At no time,
however, did the authorities open an investigation. The Committee also notes that, after he
was arrested, the complainant was unable to consult a doctor who was of his choosing and
provided sufficient guarantees of independence from the prison system.
6.4
In the absence of relevant information on this point from the State Party, the
Committee concludes that the State Party’s request for the complaint to be found inadmissible
for failure to exhaust domestic remedies in connection with the torture the complainant
endured on being arrested and while in pretrial detention is irrelevant in this case, as the State
Party has not demonstrated that the remedies for reporting the torture were, in practice, made
available to the complainant to enable him to assert his rights under the Convention.15 The
Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded from considering these claims under
article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention.
6.5
The Committee nonetheless takes note of the State Party’s assertion that the
complainant did not report the ill-treatment and beatings he claimed to have been subjected
to by prison officers and by other inmates (see para. 2.12). It notes that the complainant did
not respond to the State Party’s assertion, provide an explanation of any sort or submit any
15 Laaroussi v. Morocco (CAT/C/74/D/891/2018), para. 7.5.
CAT/C/84/D/1156/2022
GE.26-07218
9
documentary evidence that he had brought these allegations to the attention of the authorities.
Consequently, the Committee concludes, pursuant to article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, that
the complainant has not shown that he has exhausted domestic remedies in respect of the
allegations of ill-treatment inflicted by prison officials and by other inmates upon the
conclusion of his trial.
6.6
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 the consideration of the merits of the claims made under
articles 12–15 of the Convention, read in conjunction with article 1, and under article 16.
Consideration of the merits
7.1
The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information
made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention.
7.2
The Committee takes note of the complainant’s claim that the physical abuse he was
subjected to on being arrested, while in custody at the Royal Gendarmerie headquarters in
Laayoune, during his transfer by plane to Rabat and before the investigating judge constitutes
torture within the meaning of 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 that very day, was brought before an investigating judge of the Military Court on
12 December 2010 and later still before the Military Court, which did not order an
investigation into these allegations of torture. According to the State Party, the complainant
did not formally raise the allegations of torture before the competent authorities. The
Committee takes note, too, of 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
conducted in the civilian criminal justice system, the Rabat Court of Appeals appointed three
doctors to produce an expert medical assessment.
7.3
The Committee notes that, according to the complainant, this medical assessment was
not conducted – as required under, for example, the Istanbul Protocol – by independent and
impartial doctors. In this respect, the Committee also notes that, during the trial concerning
the dismantling of the Gdeim Izik camp, the medical assessments by which the complainant
and his fellow defendants were concerned were submitted to international medical experts
for a second opinion, in which it was concluded that the Istanbul Protocol had not been
followed, in particular because the rules on the independence and impartiality of the experts
responsible for the assessment 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 medical assessments, which did not indicate how compatible the observed
injuries and the alleged abuse were, were identical.16 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 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.17
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.18 The Committee also takes
note of the solitary confinement imposed on the complainant and reiterates its position on
such confinement – 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. 19 In view of the complainant’s assertion that he was
16 Laaroussi v. Morocco, para. 8.2.
17 Ibid. and M.B. v. Morocco (CAT/C/72/D/923/2019), para. 13.2.
18 See Committee against Torture, general comment No. 2 (2007).
19 CAT/C/51/4, para. 32.
CAT/C/84/D/1156/2022
10
GE.26-07218
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 on being arrested and shortly thereafter, while being interrogated and while being
transferred for his appearance before the investigating judge constitute torture within the
meaning of article 1 of the Convention.20
7.5
The Committee is of the view that, insofar as it involved punitive and discriminatory
measures that the State Party has not denied taking, all the ill-treatment that the complainant
claims to have been subjected to while in detention – namely, (a) the deplorable sanitary
conditions during his time in custody at the Royal Gendarmerie headquarters in Laayoune
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 – also constitutes torture. Accordingly, the Committee does not consider it necessary
to examine separately the claims under article 16 of the Convention.21
7.6
The Committee must also decide whether the failure to open an investigation into the
allegations of torture that the complainant made before 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 12 December 2010
bearing visible signs of torture before a military investigating judge, who did not include his
allegations in the record of the appearance; (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 responds that
the complainant did not formally raise the allegations of torture before the competent
authorities and that, after the case was referred to the ordinary justice system, the Rabat Court
of Appeals ordered a medical assessment, which the complainant refused to submit to, as a
result of the allegations of torture raised before the Court. According to the complainant, the
medical assessment ordered by the Court of Appeals was 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 doctors 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.22
7.7
The Committee notes that no medical examination was ordered by the investigating
judge of the Military Court, even though the complainant had reported having been subjected
to torture, 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 fifteen 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.23
20 Asfari v. Morocco, 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.
21 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.
22 Laaroussi v. Morocco, para. 8.6, Bani v. Morocco, para. 7.6, and M.B. v. Morocco, para. 13.6.
23 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.
CAT/C/84/D/1156/2022
GE.26-07218
11
7.8
In these circumstances, the State Party has also failed to meet its obligation under
article 13 of the Convention to ensure the right of the complainant to lodge a complaint,
which presupposes that the authorities provide a satisfactory response to such a complaint by
launching a prompt and impartial investigation. 24 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.25 The Committee concludes that the facts of the
case also constitute a violation of article 13 of the Convention.26
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 that 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.27 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. 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.28
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 as a result of torture.
He claims not to have confessed to anything but to have been forced, while blindfolded, to
sign a document whose contents were unknown to him. 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 made as a result of
torture.29 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 making no attempt – 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 – to ascertain whether the complainant’s allegations
were true, and by using such statements against the complainant in the judicial proceedings,
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
24 Bendib v. Algeria (CAT/C/51/D/376/2009), para. 6.6.
25 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.
26 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.
27 Bendib v. Algeria, para. 6.7.
28 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.
29 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.
CAT/C/84/D/1156/2022
12
GE.26-07218
Morocco,30 it expressed concern about the fact that, under the State Party’s current system of
investigation, confessions were 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.31
7.11
Lastly, the Committee notes the systemic nature of the series of cases concerning the
events that occurred on 8 November 2010 in the Gdeim Izik camp. As its jurisprudence
shows, these cases are characterized by a broad 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.32 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.
Pursuant to rule 118 (5) of its rules of procedure, the Committee invites 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.
30 CAT/C/MAR/CO/4, para. 17.
31 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.
32 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.