The Committee points out that the State party has not denied that the complainant was tortured, allowing criminal proceedings to be brought against the Civil Guards who injured the complainant and accepting that the treatment suffered by the complainant was described during the trial as torture, and that three people were in principle found guilty.

Since no formal criminal proceedings followed as a result of his complaint with the Public Prosecutor, the first avenue remained closed to him.

3.6 The author states that the complaint has not been submitted to any other procedure of international investigation or settlement.

2.7 The complainant alleges that he has exhausted all available domestic remedies and has not submitted the matter to any other procedure of international investigation.

2.11 The complainant states that the same matter has not been submitted under any other procedure of international investigation or settlement.

The Claim

The claim

6.3 The Committee observes that the State party confined itself to asserting that recent decisions by the courts permit the judicial review of pardons, and that the Convention against Torture can be invoked before the domestic courts it did not indicate what specific remedies were available to the complainant, nor what degree of judicial review pardons would be subject to.

In spite of his complaint to the authorities, he has not, to date, received any protection from the police and is unaware of what action has been taken to investigate the threats against himself and his family.

Date of the complaint 29 August 2000 (initial submission)

In case there is still doubt as to the wish of the complainant, the Committee shall be seized of the complaint.

The State party's submission on admissibility and merits and the complainant's comments thereon

Complainant's comments on the State party's observations regarding the admissibility and merits of the complaint

Complainant's comments on the State party's submissions on the admissibility and the merits of the communication

Comments by the complainant

The complainant's submission

The complainant's comments

6.1 At its twenty ninth session the Committee considered the question of the admissibility of the complaint and ascertained that the same matter had not been and was not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

5.3 Moreover, since the complainant was under the protection of the Committee by virtue of its request to the State party not to send him back to Algeria while his application was being considered, he had not considered it worthwhile to launch additional domestic proceedings, in particular interim relief proceedings for suspension.

(a) That the complaint is inadmissible and

(c) The object of the complaint

5.2 Counsel denies that the complaint constitutes an abuse of the right of submission.

Perhaps the delegation could explain Israel's hesitation to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention, when it clearly understood the importance of complaint procedures and had a mechanism in place at the national level.

In the complainant's case, the Migration Board took its decision after conducting two comprehensive interviews with the complainant.

Before dying, the complainant's brother told a colleague that it was the complainant himself who had been the target.

The State party refers to the complaint submitted by the same counsel on behalf of the complainant's wife in December 2001, where it was argued that her situation was so closely linked to that of the present complaint that it was impossible to argue her case without referring to his.

You are always complaining.

Control over the person of an applicant

The facts as presented by the complainant

The facts as submitted by the complainants

(a) That the complaint is inadmissible and

The complaint had been lodged by the United States of America.

The Committee decides on a complaint in the light of all information made available to it by the complainant and the State party.

4.1 The State party considers the complaint inadmissible because it says that the complainant has failed to exhaust domestic remedies.

1.1 The complainant, Mr. Mafhoud Brada, a citizen of Algeria, was residing in France when the present complaint was submitted.

3.3 As to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the petitioner argues that to take (unspecified) legal actions directly against Mr. Andreasen would not be effective given the rejection of the complaint by the Regional Public Prosecutor and the Ministry of Justice.

The complainant also alleges that the public prosecutors in Serbia and Montenegro seldom institute criminal proceedings against police officers accused of misconduct and delay the dismissal of complaints, sometimes for years, thereby denying the injured party the right to prosecute his her own case.

Cat n 1 What are the charges against the exposition?

Alleged victim(s) The complainant

Complaints regarding detention of individuals are filed

Alleged victim Complainant

Alleged victims The complainant

The complainant himself made no attempt to resist arrest.

State party's observations on admissibility

The State party's observations on the admissibility of the complaint