CAT/C/67/D/813/2017
2.15 The complainant submits that on 3 April 2014 a new Prosecutor-General was
appointed, who was the same person who had served as Federal Prosecutor from 2007 to
2014 (Johan Delmulle), invoking a conflict of interest on the part of the latter.
2.16 The complainant submits that on 6 October 2015 the Prosecutor-General dismissed
his complaint, arguing that there was no basis to find that a criminal offence had been
committed by the defendants or others. The complainant claims that there is no further
remedy available in Belgian law against such types of decisions.
2.17 The complainant submits that on 4 April 2016 he filed an application against Belgium
before the European Court of Human Rights, claiming a violation by the State party of its
obligations under articles 3 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. On 2 June
2016 the Court ruled the case inadmissible in a single-judge decision, pursuant to articles 34
and 35 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The decision did not contain any
details or specific reasons for dismissing the case.
2.18 The complainant affirms that his complaint has not been, and is not being, examined
under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.
The complaint
3.1
The complainant claims that the State party has violated its obligations under the
Convention in several respects. Firstly, he argues that the State party failed to take all
effective measures to prevent and/or to stop the acts of torture perpetrated against him when
he was detained in Guantanamo Bay, contrary to article 2 of the Convention.
3.2
The complainant also submits that the State party has failed to investigate and
prosecute the Belgian public officials who were complicit in the acts of torture committed
against him when he was detained at Guantanamo Bay, even though the said public officials
have been present and continue to be present in the State party’s territory, contrary to articles
6 (1) and (2) and 7 (1) of the Convention.
3.3
The complainant also considers that the State party has failed to educate, train and
inform its law enforcement personnel, public officials and other personnel involved in the
custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest,
detention or imprisonment with regard to the absolute prohibition of torture, contrary to
article 10 of the Convention.
3.4
Furthermore, the complainant considers that the State party has failed to ensure that
its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, despite the
reasonable grounds for believing that torture was committed against the complainant in a
territory and against a person who was under the State party’s jurisdiction, pursuant to article
12 of the Convention.
3.5
The State party has also failed to ensure that the complainant has the right to complain
to, and to have his allegations of torture promptly and impartially examined by, its competent
authorities pursuant to article 13 of the Convention, notwithstanding the repeated requests in
this regard.
3.6
The complainant submits that the State party has failed to ensure that he obtains
effective redress and remedies under Belgian law for the acts of torture he was subjected to
in Guantanamo Bay, including for the failure by the State party’s authorities to promptly and
impartially investigate his allegations upon his return to the State party of having been
tortured, contrary to article 14 of the Convention.
State party’s observations on admissibility
4.1
On 17 May 2017, the State party submitted that since the same matter had been
considered by the European Court of Human Rights, the present complaint to the Committee
should be considered inadmissible.
4.2
The State party submits, referring to article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that “the
Committee shall not consider any communications from an individual under this article
unless it has ascertained that the same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under
another procedure of international investigation or settlement”.
4