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.26-07219 (E) 250626 250626
Committee against Torture
Decision adopted by the Committee under article 22 of the
Convention, concerning communication No. 1166/2023*, **
Communication submitted by:
Sidi Ahmed Lemjiyed (represented by counsel,
Francesca Romana Doria)
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 6 January 2023 (not issued
in document form)
Date of adoption of decision:
24 April 2026
Subject matter:
Torture in detention
Procedural issue:
Abuse of the right of submission
Substantive issues:
Torture and 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, 2 and 11–16
1.1
The complainant is Sidi Ahmed Lemjiyed, a national of Morocco born in Western
Sahara in 1952. He claims that the State Party has violated his rights under articles 1, 2 and
11 to 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 6 January 2023, 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) refrain from any form of pressure,
intimidation or reprisals likely to be detrimental to the physical and psychological health of
* 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/1166/2023
Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment
Distr.: General
4 June 2026
English
Original: French
CAT/C/84/D/1166/2023
2
GE.26-07219
the complainant; (c) allow the complainant to be visited by his family and his counsel and to
speak with his counsel in a strictly confidential manner; (d) allow the complainant to be
visited by a doctor of his choosing in prison and receive appropriate treatment; and (e) return
the complainant to a group regime in a prison closer to his family.
1.3
On 18 December 2023, the Committee, again acting through its Rapporteur on new
complaints and interim measures, denied the request of the State Party to lift the interim
measures.
Facts as submitted by the complainant
2.1
Beginning on 9 October 2010, thousands of Saharans living in Western Sahara left
their homes for temporary camps located on the outskirts of towns, including Gdeim Izik, a
camp in the vicinity of Laayoune. The aim of this initiative was to denounce the
discrimination that Saharans believe they are subjected to by the State Party. The complainant
did not actively participate in the Gdeim Izik camp movement, but visited it as a human rights
activist to interview people there about their demands and their suffering. He was also the
president of the Committee for the Protection of Natural Resources in Western Sahara.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, and Moroccan soldiers were reportedly killed. A violent
wave of repression led by the Moroccan security forces and supported by Moroccan civilians
residing in Saharan territory ensued. The complainant states that, on the day that the camp
was dismantled, he was not at Gdeim Izik, as he was returning from Spain with international
observers to attend a trial, and they had gone directly to his home in Laayoune.
2.3
On 25 December 2010, the complainant was in the Hacoune neighbourhood of
Laayoune. He was surrounded by unmarked vehicles carrying men in civilian clothing who,
after covering his head with his own jacket, handcuffed him, pushed him into a car and took
him to the Laayoune police station. Police officers then beat him with batons and interrogated
him about his activities with the Committee for the Protection of Natural Resources in
Western Sahara and about the foreign organizations with which he had purportedly been in
contact or that had purportedly provided him with funding. He remained handcuffed and
blindfolded throughout the time that he was at the police station.
2.4
The complainant was then transferred to the Laayoune Royal Gendarmerie, where he
was tortured. While suspended by his hands and feet, with his face against the floor and his
eyes blindfolded, he was beaten all over his body with batons, his feet were burned with
cigarettes and his right thumbnail was torn out. The torture was so brutal that a bone in his
back fractured, causing him serious spinal problems. All his requests for medical assistance
were denied. When he asked to see a doctor, his torturer replied, “You deserve to die for your
statements, which insult the great Kingdom of Morocco.” Whenever he defended his
statements, the torture intensified.
2.5
After four days in detention, the complainant was transferred by military plane to
Rabat. During the journey, his captors continued to subject him to ill-treatment and
threatened to throw him from the plane mid-flight. He was brought before the investigating
judge in a terrible state and asked to be examined by a doctor and to receive legal counsel.
When he showed the investigating judge the marks left by the torture that he had endured,
the judge ignored them and did not grant his request, simply demanding that he sign a
statement, which he refused to do. He was then taken to the Salé 2 prison, where the torture
resumed. He was stripped, still blindfolded, doused with cold water and beaten with fists.
Once he had been put in a cell, his handcuffs and the blindfold covering his eyes were
removed, but the ill-treatment continued; in particular, he was deprived of water and sleep
and was subjected to violence every time he refused to sing the national anthem.
1 The complainant claims to have been a political prisoner on two occasions, but does not provide
further details.
CAT/C/84/D/1166/2023
GE.26-07219
3
2.6
The complainant was not told where he was being held. He submits that he learned
only after about 20 days2 that he was being held at the Salé 2 prison and that his family was
not informed of his detention or of his whereabouts. He did not receive a visit from his family
until 3 January 2011. Beginning on that date, he told his mother and his three sisters about
the torture to which he had been subjected. His mother and sisters were able to see for
themselves the marks on his body from the beatings and burns that he had endured, in addition
to the swelling on his right hand that had occurred after his thumbnail had been torn out.
These marks were still clearly visible on that date, even though the complainant and his
family members were separated by two sets of bars during the visit. Furthermore, the
complainant was not able to see a doctor until three and a half months after his imprisonment.
2.7
The complainant spent six months in solitary confinement at the Salé 2 prison in
appalling conditions, shoeless and sleeping on the floor. His health deteriorated. It was
difficult for him to speak about the abuse that he had suffered and the conditions of his
detention, particularly because guards were present during his family’s visits. He remained
in custody at the Salé 2 prison until 31 August 2016, then was transferred to the El Arjat
prison, where he was held until 16 September 2017, when he was transferred to the Ait
Melloul 2 central prison, where he is currently being held.
2.8
On 17 February 2013, on the conclusion of a mass trial of 25 Saharan defendants, the
Rabat Military Court sentenced the complainant to life imprisonment for belonging to a
criminal gang and participating in the commission of acts of violence against a public official
acting in the performance of his duties.3 During the trial, the complainant drew attention to
his worrying state of health and claimed to have been the victim of physical and
psychological torture and to know the identities of his torturers. He also explained that the
statements that he had signed had been made under torture. However, no investigation into
the acts of torture was launched.4
2.9
On 27 July 2016, the Court of Cassation overturned the judgment of the Military
Court5 and referred the case to the Rabat Court of Appeal.6 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 the
Gdeim Izik camp, but had instead questioned him about his trips to Algeria and the visit of
the international observers. He claimed that he had been forced to affix his fingerprint to a
statement without knowing its content, and refused to answer any questions related to the
falsified statements obtained under torture. On 25 January 2017, more than six years after the
events, the presiding judge of the Court of Appeal agreed to allow the defendants to undergo
forensic medical assessments. However, the performance of these assessments was entrusted
to three Moroccan forensic doctors who had not been trained on the Manual on the Effective
Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol) and did not offer sufficient guarantees of
independence.7 The complainant therefore refused to undergo an assessment. The lawyers of
the co-defendants subsequently presented these assessments to four doctors, of French and
Spanish nationality, who produced second opinions concluding that the Istanbul Protocol had
not been respected.
2.10
On 19 July 2017, the Rabat Court of Appeal upheld the complainant’s conviction,
primarily on the basis of the statements signed under torture. On 25 November 2020, the
Court of Cassation dismissed the complainant’s appeal.
2.11
The complainant has been held in solitary confinement since the 2017 ruling. He is
alone in his cell for 23 hours a day with no contact with other inmates, his family or his
2 The complainant’s statements and those of the State Party conflict in this regard (see para. 4.8).
3 According to the complainant, this conviction is based almost exclusively on his statement, which had
been falsified and signed under torture.
4 A/HRC/27/48/Add.5, para. 68.
5 The Court of Cassation found that it had not been shown that all the constituent elements of the
offence were present.
6 In the meantime, the law had changed and the crimes for which the trial was being held were no
longer under military jurisdiction.
7 On the grounds that these forensic doctors are attached to the Court of Appeal.
CAT/C/84/D/1166/2023
4
GE.26-07219
lawyer, who has been barred from visiting him since the end of the 2017 appeal trial. Before
that ruling, the complainant had been allowed to call his family for five minutes once a week
and had received a 15-minute visit on Fridays, with his family having to wait for three hours
to see him. During the visits, he had been handcuffed and surrounded by guards. The prison
administration would often not allow his sisters to visit him.
2.12
This arbitrary continued detention in solitary confinement is having serious
consequences for the complainant’s mental and physical health. He is also suffering from
kidney disease, back pain and eye sensitivity, and is unable to move normally due to pain in
his right foot. His hand and his feet are extremely swollen. He went on his first hunger strike,
which lasted 27 days, from 19 September to 12 October 2017 and has been on two more since
then.8 Since 3 October 2022, his family has had no telephone contact with him and therefore
no news.
Complaint
3.1
The complainant considers that his treatment since his arrest and during his detention,
which has lasted more than six years, constitutes a violation of articles 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15 and 16 of the Convention. The physical abuse that he suffered – which was intended to
extract information or a confession from him, to punish him or to intimidate him – during his
arrest in Laayoune on 25 December 2010, his detention at the Laayoune Royal Gendarmerie
in December 2010, his transfer by plane to Rabat in early January 2011, his hearing before
the investigating judge and the first months of his detention at the Salé 2 prison constitutes
torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. The complainant mentions the
punches, kicks, baton blows and cigarette burns that he received and the fact that his
thumbnail was torn out, he was suspended by his wrists and knees, head down and
blindfolded, and he was held in solitary confinement for a very long time. 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 claims a violation of articles 12 and 13 of the Convention on the
grounds that the investigating judge, the prosecutor, the Military Court and the Rabat Court
of Appeal refused to launch an impartial investigation into the allegations of torture that he
made on several occasions, despite the visible signs of violence on his body when he appeared
before the investigating judge. In addition, the ongoing absence of an investigation prevents
the complainant from obtaining rehabilitation, compensation, care and guarantees of
non-repetition, in violation of article 14 of the Convention.
3.3
The complainant also claims a violation of article 15 arising from the fact that the
Military Court in 2013 and the Rabat Court of Appeal in 2017 took into account confessions
signed under torture. Lastly, he alleges a violation of article 16 arising from the conditions
of detention at the Laayoune Royal Gendarmerie, under which he was held without food or
water and was forced to urinate on himself, and at the Salé 2 prison, under which he was not
provided with a mattress for several months.
State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 6 February and 14 July 2023, 28 March and 26 November 2024 and 11 April and
12 November 2025, the State Party submitted observations. It first contested the Committee’s
request for interim measures pursuant to rule 114 (1) of its rules of procedure. It condemns
the malicious tactic employed by the complainant’s counsel of deliberately flooding the
Committee with purely political and propagandistic information and false allegations with
the aim of perpetuating the notion that the complainant is the target of reprisals. According
to the State Party, the complainant is serving his sentence in entirely normal conditions, just
like any other inmate, without any discrimination. Neither he nor his family has ever been
subjected to any reprisals or any other form of intimidation. The complainant should finally
accept the fact that justice has been served in this case.
4.2
The State Party contests the admissibility of the complaint on the grounds that it
constitutes an abuse of the right to submit a communication, since nearly 12 years have
8 No further details were provided.
CAT/C/84/D/1166/2023
GE.26-07219
5
passed since the alleged events. It wonders why there was such a delay. It finds it regrettable
that the complaint, like the nine 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. It is 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.
4.3
On the merits, the State Party argues that, notwithstanding the complainant’s claims
to the contrary, he was arrested by the Laayoune police on 25 December 2010 after the
issuance, requested by the Laayoune Royal Gendarmerie, of a nationwide wanted notice on
3 December 2010. The complainant was arrested for his involvement in the events that
occurred during the dismantling of the Gdeim Izik camp, in which 11 members of the security
forces were brutally killed, 161 were injured and several items of public property were
damaged. The complainant was questioned before being brought before the Crown
Prosecutor General at the Laayoune Court of Appeal, who oversaw all investigative, arrest
and questioning procedures.
4.4
At the end of his police custody, which did not exceed the legal time limit of 48 hours,
the complainant was brought before the Crown Prosecutor General of the Laayoune Court of
Appeal, on whose instructions he was transferred to the Rabat Military Court, which had
jurisdiction, where he was brought before the military investigating judge, who questioned
him and ordered his temporary detention at the Salé 2 prison. At the time of his arrest, his
mother was informed that he had been placed in police custody and of the date on which he
would be brought before the Prosecutor General. These measures were mentioned in the
report prepared by the criminal investigation police.
4.5
The State Party notes that, once the Rabat Court of Appeal was made aware of the
allegations of torture, the Court, acting in follow-up to a request made by the complainant’s
lawyer, ordered a medical assessment. A tripartite commission, which was chaired by a
professor of forensic medicine and composed of a doctor specializing in trauma and
orthopaedics and a psychiatrist and judicial expert working for the Rabat Court of Appeal,
was entrusted with the performance of this assessment. However, the complainant refused to
undergo this assessment, which raises questions about the true reasons for this refusal,
particularly given that the Court’s order had been issued in response to a request from his
lawyer. It should be noted that the assessment involved interviews, medical and clinical tests,
psychological evaluations, evaluations of motor skills and the nervous system and other
complementary tests. In addition, counsel for the defence was given the opportunity to
comment on this assessment. Moreover, the State Party considers that the complainant has
not discharged the burden of proof, since he has not provided sufficient information to
establish that he was subjected to acts of torture or ill-treatment.
4.6
With regard to the complainant’s allegation that the Rabat Court of Appeal based its
conviction on preliminary statements obtained under torture, the State Party states that the
Court based its decision on the findings of the criminal investigation police concerning the
individuals involved in the assaults; oral evidence confirming the complainant’s
involvement, including that of two camp residents who were not members of the security
forces, one of whom stated that he had seen the complainant violently strike members of the
security forces while they were on the ground; the complainant’s preliminary confession; a
video that confirms the planning and actual execution of the actions; and the content of the
autopsy reports. Furthermore, the State Party specifies that reports prepared by criminal
investigation police officers in criminal cases are drawn up solely for informational purposes,
in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, the complainant’s claim that the
Court relied solely on his confession made under torture is unfounded.
4.7
With regard to the allegations that no serious investigation has been conducted into
the alleged acts of torture in police custody, even though more than 12 years have passed,
and that the complainant has been denied his right to redress, the State Party notes that the
complainant refused to undergo the medical assessment that had been ordered by the Rabat
Court of Appeal in response to the request from his lawyer. In this regard, it should be noted
that it was not necessary to open an independent investigation into the allegations of torture,
CAT/C/84/D/1166/2023
6
GE.26-07219
as provided for in article 12 of the Convention, since there were no reasonable and justified
grounds to believe that the complainant had been a victim of torture.
4.8
The State Party refutes the complainant’s false allegation regarding ill-treatment
suffered upon his arrival at the Salé 2 Prison on 28 December 2010. It states that the
complainant was placed in a single-person cell equipped with a metal bed, blankets and a
pillow. Furthermore, the complainant knew where he was being held, since he was aware of,
and had signed, the official record drawn up by the military investigating judge on
28 December 2010, which stated that the judge had ordered his temporary detention at the
Salé 2 prison on the same day. It is therefore clear that he knew where he was, especially
since his family was able to visit him four days later, on 3 January 2011. The complainant
confirmed this date in his submission to the Committee.
4.9
The State Party states that the Ait Melloul 2 prison, where the complainant is currently
imprisoned, is the prison best suited to his criminal status and closest to his family’s place of
residence. It notes that the complainant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment that is
incompatible with the detention regime in place at prisons in the region where his family
lives, which are primarily intended to house individuals in pretrial detention or those serving
short sentences.
4.10
Regarding the false allegation that the complainant has been held in solitary
confinement since the 2017 ruling, the State Party wishes to clarify that the complainant has
at no point been placed in solitary confinement and that his counsel appears to be confusing
placement in a single-person cell with solitary confinement for health or security reasons.
The complainant is being held9 in a cell that meets all international standards regarding size,
natural light, ventilation and hygiene and has a television that receives various channels.
Although his criminal status prevents him from being held together with other inmates, he is
by no means isolated. His cell is located in a block that houses several other inmates, who he
encounters during his various trips around the prison, for example, to visit the medical unit
or the library, or to exercise. He has the right to exercise with the inmates convicted in the
same case, during which time they engage in sports and workouts together. His placement in
a single-person cell cannot under any circumstances be considered as solitary confinement,
which is applied in accordance with criteria that are strictly regulated by law.
4.11
With regard to the allegations that the complainant has been denied contact with his
family and his counsel, the State Party asserts that he communicates regularly with his family,
at a rate of three calls per week, each lasting between 15 and 20 minutes, and that his last call
was on 3 July 2023, which completely refutes the allegation that he has not called his family
since 3 October 2022. His family also visits him regularly.10 It is important to note that, for
humanitarian reasons and to facilitate his family’s travel, the complainant is entitled to
receive up to three visits in a week at times when his family is unable to visit once per week,
with a view to maintaining the bonds between them.
4.12
The State Party categorically refutes the allegations that the complainant has been
unable to communicate confidentially with his lawyers. Since the complainant’s transfer to
the Ait Melloul 2 prison on 16 September 2017, no lawyer has at any point visited the prison,
requested a meeting with the complainant or asked to speak with him by telephone.
Moreover, the complainant has not requested a meeting with a lawyer.
4.13
As regards the provision of a doctor chosen by the complainant, the State Party states
that inmates are cared for by the prison doctor, who reports to the General Delegation for
Prison Administration and Reintegration, may not compromise his or her professional
independence in any way and practises in a spirit of respect for human life, the individual
and his or her dignity. Furthermore, it is the prison doctor who refers his or her patients to
hospital specialists when he or she deems it necessary. The complainant has at all times
received care whenever his health has required it and whenever he has requested it. Since his
9 According to the State Party, the complainant is being held alongside two other inmates in connection
with the events at Gdeim Izik.
10 In its observations dated 14 July 2023, the State Party states that, since the complainant’s arrival at
the Ait Melloul 2 prison, he has received 77 visits from his family, the most recent of which took
place on 8 June 2023.
CAT/C/84/D/1166/2023
GE.26-07219
7
transfer to the Ait Melloul 2 prison, he has had 108 on-site consultations with a general
practitioner, 4 dental consultations and 9 off-site consultations. He has also had 24 laboratory
tests and 3 radiological examinations. It should be noted that the complainant has refused on
six occasions to leave the public hospital following appointments scheduled by the prison
administration, objecting to the requirement to wear uniform when outside prison.11 The
complainant is currently in good overall health and does not suffer from any chronic
conditions such as kidney failure or gout.
4.14
The State Party confirms that the complainant has declared that he was on a hunger
strike on five occasions. It notes that the complainant is resorting to hunger strikes to put
pressure on the prison administration with a view to obtaining benefits that are not authorized
by the regulations and evading monitoring and oversight.
4.15
Lastly, the State Party specifies that the complainant has at no point been harassed or
subjected to ill-treatment in prison, by either guards or other inmates.12 It is important to note
that the complainant’s prison situation is being monitored by the National Human Rights
Council as part of the visits that it carries out to all inmates convicted in the Gdeim Izik case.
Complainant’s comments on the State Party’s observations
5.1
On 23 June 2023, 19 May and 19 July 2024 and 8 January and 19 July 2025, the
complainant submitted his comments on the State Party’s observations. Regarding the
allegation of abuse of the right to submit a communication, the complainant asserts that, from
the outset, he reported the acts of torture and violence to which he had been subjected and
that, contrary to their obligations, the Moroccan authorities have failed to conduct any
investigation.
5.2
The complainant notes that the Ait Melloul 2 prison, which is located 640 km from
Laayoune, is not the closest to his family.13 He maintains that he has been held in solitary
confinement since the 2017 ruling, as he is held alone in his cell for at least 23 hours a day,
with no contact with the other inmates, with whom he is forbidden to speak. This punitive
solitary confinement is having serious consequences for his mental and physical health. This
is being compounded by the harassment that is being perpetrated inside the prison,
particularly by certain guards who are constantly harassing and psychologically torturing the
complainant and inciting ordinary prisoners to harass him at every turn.14 He also condemns
the National Human Rights Council, which he considers to bear the main responsibility for
his suffering, as the institution has ignored all the complaints that he has submitted to it during
his 14 years of detention and has spread lies that serve the interests of the State Party.
5.3
When the complainant is permitted to have telephone contact with his family, it is
always in the presence of a member of the prison administration. He continues to assert that
he is entitled only to one four-minute phone call per week or every two weeks, a claim that
is not contradicted by anything in the State Party’s submissions. He is forbidden from
discussing his conditions of detention or the acts of violence, under penalty of having the
phone call cut off or facing reprisals.15
5.4
The complainant notes that he suffers from kidney failure, skin and eye problems,
migraines, gout and the physical and psychological after-effects of the torture and
ill-treatment that he has endured. Although he is able to see the prison doctor, he needs
specialized care. For example, he was prevented from going to hospital on 30 December 2021
and from seeing a doctor following a request submitted on 8 April 2022. Furthermore, a
request submitted on 30 April 2022 was denied. Some medical appointments were cancelled
11 These figures are cited by the State Party in its observations dated 11 April 2025.
12 The State Party refers to various complaints filed by the complainant and dismissed by the public
prosecutor’s office. It claims that the prison administration sent him the responses with a delivery
receipt and signature confirmation, but that the complainant refused to accept the responses to his
complaints on two occasions.
13 The complainant lists the names of other prisons and the relevant distances.
14 No further details were provided. With regard to his complaints and the action that was reportedly
taken in response, the complainant states that he is not aware of any investigation and therefore
cannot comment.
15 No further details were provided.
CAT/C/84/D/1166/2023
8
GE.26-07219
because he refused to wear the uniform for ordinary prisoners, a practice employed by the
prison administration with the aim of humiliating the Saharan prisoners.
5.5
With regard to his alleged confessions, the complainant asserts that it has already been
made amply clear that, during the two sets of court proceedings, no substantive evidence
proving the defendants’ involvement in the murder of the security officers was presented,
and that the convictions are based primarily on the defendants’ falsified statements that they
signed under duress, without having been able to read them, and on new oral evidence that
conveniently emerged more than seven years after the events. However, these opportune
witnesses are, for the most part, simply auxiliary forces officers, civil protection personnel
and gendarmes, which obviously means that such evidence, which is largely questionable,
cannot be relied upon.
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 the State Party’s contention that the complaint is inadmissible
because it constitutes an abuse of the right to submit a communication. The Committee points
out that neither the Convention nor the Committee’s rules of procedure establish a time limit
for submitting a communication. In any event, it notes that the complainant claims not only
that he was subjected to torture and ill-treatment when he was arrested and held in custody
in 2010 but also that there was no investigation into his allegations of torture or concerning
the conditions of detention at the time of the submission of the communication, claims that
do not constitute an abuse of the right to submit a communication under article 22 (2) of the
Convention.
6.3
With reference to article 22 (4) of the Convention and rule 111 of the Committee’s
rules of procedure, the Committee finds no other obstacle to the admissibility of the
communication and proceeds to its consideration of the merits with respect to articles 2 (1)
and 11 to 15 of the Convention, read in conjunction with article 1, and with respect to
article 16.
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 takes note of the complainant’s claim that the physical abuse that he
was subjected to on being arrested, during his detention at the Laayoune Royal Gendarmerie
and his transfer to Rabat and at the Salé 2 prison constitutes torture under article 1 of the
Convention. It also notes that the complainant, not represented by counsel and bearing visible
signs of torture, about which he made explicit allegations at the time, was brought before an
investigating judge of the Military Court a few days after being arrested and subsequently
before the Military Court, which did not order an investigation into these allegations. It
further notes that the complainant claims that he was subjected to the “roast chicken” method,
involving suspension by the wrists and knees from a metal bar, with the head down and in a
crouched position, which is essentially a form of torture, that he was punched, kicked and
beaten with iron bars and batons, that he was burned with cigarettes, that his thumbnail was
torn out and that he was doused with cold water. The Committee 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
Appeal appointed three doctors to produce an expert medical assessment.
CAT/C/84/D/1166/2023
GE.26-07219
9
7.3
It notes the complainant’s allegation that the medical assessment was not conducted
by independent and impartial physicians, as required, for example, by the Istanbul Protocol.
In this regard, it points out 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 had not been followed, the interviews had been of very short
duration, the evaluation of trauma and psychological harm had been unsatisfactory and the
findings of all the expert assessments, which contained no indication of the degree of
compatibility of the lesions that had been observed with the alleged abuse, were similar.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, for example, by the Istanbul Protocol and as part of an official
investigation into the complainant’s allegations of torture. It 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 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 It also notes that the
complainant was placed in solitary confinement 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.19 Taking account of the complainant’s assertion that he was afforded none
of these protections while he was in pretrial detention or solitary confinement, and in the
absence of persuasive rebuttals of these allegations from the State Party, the Committee finds
that the physical ill-treatment and injuries that the complainant asserts that he endured when
he was arrested and interrogated and while he was in detention constitute torture within the
meaning of article 1 of the Convention.20
7.5
The Committee is of the view that, insofar as it involved punitive and discriminatory
measures, all the treatment to which the complainant was allegedly subjected during his
detention, and which the State Party does not contest, also constitutes torture: (a) the
deplorable sanitary conditions while in police custody at the Laayoune Royal Gendarmerie
headquarters and at the 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.21
7.6
The complainant also invokes article 2 (1) of the Convention, pursuant to which the
State Party should have taken effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures
to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. The Committee recalls its
concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Morocco, in which it expressed
concern about the situation in Western Sahara and allegations of torture, ill-treatment and the
extraction of confessions under torture22 and called on the State Party to take, as a matter of
urgency, substantive steps to prevent all acts of torture and ill-treatment and announce the
introduction of a policy that would produce measurable progress towards the eradication of
all torture and ill-treatment by State officials. In the present case, the Committee notes the
16 Laaroussi v. Morocco (CAT/C/74/D/891/2018), para. 8.2.
17 Laaroussi v. Morocco, para. 8.2; and M.B. v. Morocco (CAT/C/72/D/923/2019), para. 13.2.
18 See Committee against Torture, general comment No. 2 (2007) on the implementation of article 2.
19 CAT/C/51/4, para. 32.
20 Asfari v. Morocco (CAT/C/59/D/606/2014), para. 13.2; Abbahah v. Morocco
(CAT/C/72/D/871/2018), para. 11.2; Bani v. Morocco (CAT/C/75/D/999/2020), para. 7.2; Laaroussi
v. Morocco, para. 8.2; and M.B. v. Morocco, para. 13.2.
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 CAT/C/MAR/CO/4, para. 12. See also CCPR/C/MAR/CO/6, paras. 23 and 24.
CAT/C/84/D/1166/2023
10
GE.26-07219
complainant’s allegations concerning the treatment he was subjected to by State officials
while he was in custody, his inability to contact his family, his lack of access to counsel and
his limited access to a doctor. The authorities did not take any steps to investigate the acts of
torture to which the complainant was subjected or, if appropriate, to punish the perpetrators,
despite the visible signs of torture he bore and the complaints he submitted to the
investigating judge and to the Military Court. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee
finds a violation of article 2 (1) of the Convention, read in conjunction with article 1.23
7.7
The Committee then notes that the complainant claims that he is a victim of a violation
of his rights under article 11 of the Convention, in which States Parties are called on to keep
under systematic review arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to
any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under their jurisdiction, with a
view to preventing any cases of torture. In particular, the complainant claims that: (a) despite
his worsening health and his request for medical care, he did not receive appropriate medical
care from a doctor of his choosing; (b) he was subjected to torture and ill-treatment during
his pretrial detention; (c) he was placed in solitary confinement and denied visits from his
family and lawyer; and (d) he did not have access to effective remedies to challenge the
ill-treatment. The Committee recalls its concluding observations on the fourth periodic report
of Morocco, in which it found regrettable the lack of information on the practical application
of basic safeguards such as examination by an independent physician and notification of the
family.24
7.8
In the present case, it notes that the State Party has not submitted information in
respect of the complainant’s conditions of detention after his arrest. While the State Party
acknowledges the various complaints filed by the complainant regarding ill-treatment in
detention, it has not provided any documentary evidence regarding the decisions of the
prosecutor’s office in relation to those complaints. It asserts that the complainant’s family
was notified in a timely manner of his arrest and custody, but provides no documentary
evidence to support that assertion either. The Committee notes that the State Party has
provided general information on the complainant’s conditions of detention and the medical
care he has received without providing relevant explanations to demonstrate that it carried
out the necessary monitoring. In the absence of relevant information to the contrary from the
State Party or documentary evidence that the complainant’s allegations and his conditions of
detention were effectively addressed, the existence of these conditions and of ill-treatment is
sufficient to establish that the State Party failed to fulfil its obligation to keep under
systematic review arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any
form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view
to preventing any cases of torture, and that this failure resulted in harm to the complainant.
The Committee therefore finds a violation of article 11 of the Convention.25
7.9
The Committee must also decide whether the failure to open an investigation into the
allegations of torture that the complainant submitted to the judicial authorities constitutes a
violation by the State Party of its obligations under article 12 of the Convention. The
Committee takes note of the complainant’s claims that: (a) he appeared 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 then specifically complained about the torture to
which he had been subjected before the investigating judge and the Military Court; and
(c) neither the prosecutor nor the judge initiated an investigation at any point. The State Party
responds that, after the case was referred to a civilian court and allegations of torture were
raised before the Rabat Court of Appeal, the Court ordered a medical assessment to be
conducted, but the complainant refused to submit to it. According to the complainant, the
medical assessment ordered by the Court was not independent and impartial or part of an
investigation into the torture that he had been subjected to, as required, for example, by the
Istanbul Protocol. The Committee reiterates that, although it 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
23 Laaroussi v. Morocco, para. 8.4; M.B. v. Morocco, para. 13.4; and Bani v. Morocco, para. 9.4.
24 CAT/C/MAR/CO/4, para. 7.
25 Bani v. Morocco, para. 7.5; Laaroussi v. Morocco, para. 8.5; and M.B. v. Morocco, para. 13.5.
CAT/C/84/D/1166/2023
GE.26-07219
11
relevant evidence that the assessment was performed by independent and impartial doctors,
as required, for example, by the Istanbul Protocol.26
7.10
The Committee notes that the investigating judge of the Military Court did not order
a medical examination, even though the complainant expressly requested one and bore clear
signs of physical abuse, and that there was no investigation in this regard. Furthermore, the
Military Court failed take into account the complainant’s allegations of torture when it
convicted him. The Committee also 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, for example, by the Istanbul Protocol.
The Committee therefore finds that the absence of any 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.27
7.11
In these circumstances, the State Party has also failed to meet its obligation under
article 13 of the Convention to guarantee the complainant’s right to complain, which calls for
the authorities to provide a satisfactory response to a complaint by launching a prompt and
impartial investigation.28 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.29 The Committee concludes that the facts of the case also involve a violation of
article 13 of the Convention.30
7.12
Regarding the complainant’s claims under article 14 of the Convention, the
Committee recalls that this article recognizes the right of victims of torture to fair and
adequate compensation and also requires States Parties to ensure that such victims obtain
redress for all damage suffered. The redress must cover all the damage suffered and should
encompass restitution, compensation and guarantees of non-repetition of the violations,
taking into account the circumstances of the individual case. 31 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 assertions, the medical assessment ordered by the Court of Appeal was not
performed by independent and impartial doctors, as required, for example, by the Istanbul
Protocol and as part of an investigation into those allegations prevented the complainant from
obtaining rehabilitation, compensation, care 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.32
7.13
The complainant also claims to be a victim of a violation of article 15 of the
Convention, as he was convicted on the basis of confessions obtained through torture. He
claims not to have confessed but to have been forced to sign a document without knowing
26 Laaroussi v. Morocco, para. 8.6; Bani v. Morocco, para. 7.6; and M.B. v. Morocco, para. 13.6.
27 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.
28 Bendib v. Algeria (CAT/C/51/D/376/2009), para. 6.6.
29 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.
30 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.
31 Bendib v. Algeria, para. 6.7.
32 Niyonzima v. Burundi (CAT/C/53/D/514/2012), para. 8.6; Asfari v. Morocco, para. 13.6; Abbahah v.
Morocco, para. 11.9; Laaroussi v. Morocco, para. 8.9; Bani v. Morocco, para. 7.9; and M.B. v.
Morocco, para. 13.8.
CAT/C/84/D/1166/2023
12
GE.26-07219
what was in it. The Committee recalls that the general nature of the provisions of article 15
derives from the absolute nature of the prohibition of torture and therefore implies an
obligation for any State Party to verify that statements included in proceedings under its
jurisdiction were not obtained through torture.33 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 the probative value of the confession he had signed under torture, to no avail.
The Committee also notes the State Party’s assertion that the complainant’s life sentence was
based on various pieces of evidence, including his confession; it also notes that the appellate
court failed to give due consideration to the allegations of torture when sentencing the
complainant on the basis of his confession. The Committee considers that the State Party had
the obligation to ascertain the veracity of the complainant’s allegations. By failing to fulfil
that obligation other than through the medical assessment ordered by the Court of Appeal,
which was not performed by independent and impartial doctors, as required, for example, by
the Istanbul Protocol, and by using such statements in the judicial proceedings against the
complainant, the State Party violated its obligations under article 15 of the Convention. The
Committee recalls that, in its concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of
Morocco,34 it expressed concern about the fact that, under the State Party’s current system of
investigation, confessions are commonly used as evidence for purposes of prosecution and
conviction, thus creating conditions that may provide more scope for the torture and
ill-treatment of suspects.35
7.14
Lastly, the Committee notes the systemic nature of the series of cases concerning the
events of 8 November 2010 in the Gdeim Izik camp. As its jurisprudence shows, these cases
are characterized by a consistent pattern of allegations of arbitrary arrests, solitary
confinement, acts of torture or ill-treatment during questioning and the subsequent use of
confessions obtained under duress in judicial proceedings. The Committee has already
considered these issues in a series of communications – Asfari v. Morocco, Abbahah v.
Morocco, Laaroussi v. Morocco, Bani v. Morocco, N’Dour v. Morocco and M.B. v. Morocco
– in which it expressed concern about the failure of the authorities to conduct prompt,
impartial and effective investigations into allegations of torture and their ongoing use of
statements obtained under torture as evidence.36 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 2 (1) and 11
to 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
domestic legal procedures, the criminal conviction of the complainant, and, if there has been
a violation of article 15 of the Convention, set aside the conviction; (d) refrain from any form
of pressure, intimidation or reprisals likely to be detrimental to the physical and psychological
health of the complainant, which would otherwise constitute a violation of its obligation
under the Convention to cooperate with the Committee in good faith in the implementation
33 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.
34 CAT/C/MAR/CO/4, para. 17.
35 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.
36 See N’Dour v. Morocco (CAT/C/72/D/650/2015); Asfari v. Morocco; Abbahah v. Morocco;
Laaroussi v. Morocco; and Bani v. Morocco, para. 7.11.
CAT/C/84/D/1166/2023
GE.26-07219
13
of the provisions of the Convention; and (e) allow the complainant to be visited in prison by
his family, his counsel and a doctor of his choosing and 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.