CAT/C/59/D/606/2014
hearing. Moreover, the complainant denounced the acts of torture to which he had been
subjected at the hearings before the military investigating judge on 12 January and 12
August 2011, and repeated his complaint during his trial before the military court. He states
that no medical examination was ordered by the military investigating judge, a fact which
was also denounced by his lawyer during the trial. By proceeding in this manner, the
judicial authorities denied the complainant his right to justice, compensation, medical
treatment including psychological care, and guarantees of non-repetition of the crime. The
complainant considers that these facts constitute violations of articles 12, 13 and 14 of the
Convention.
3.4
The complainant also considers that his conviction by the military court is based on
his so-called confession, which he denies having made, and on the confessions of his codefendants, which were obtained by means of torture. He recalls that he confessed to
nothing, but was forced to sign a document without being able to ascertain its contents. The
complainant considers that the State party violated article 15 of the Convention because it
did not ensure that any statement obtained as a result of torture could not be invoked as
evidence in the proceedings against him.
3.5
More generally, he denounces all the ill-treatment that was inflicted upon him
throughout the judicial process which, even if it does not constitute torture, amounts to
inhuman and degrading treatment under article 16 of the Convention nonetheless. He
includes in this regard the conditions of his detention during the first months that he spent
in Salé prison in Rabat. In particular, he denounces his continued arbitrary detention on the
basis of confessions obtained through torture. The complainant alleges that, when he was
placed in pretrial detention on 12 November 2010, he spent the first night handcuffed to a
large door with iron bars, at first standing and then lying on the ground. He was blindfolded,
and was kicked and verbally abused by the guards whenever he moved. From 18 November
2010, he was placed in solitary confinement. He was held in a cell for three months, was
denied out-of-cell exercise and could communicate with other detainees only through the
window. He was allowed a medical examination only after his hunger strike, and had to
wait until 9 December 2010 to be allowed his first visit from one of his lawyers. He was
permitted to see his wife only after completing a month in detention. During her first four
visits, he was not allowed to see her alone, and he was therefore unable to tell her about the
treatment he had suffered.
3.6
The complainant claims to have exhausted all domestic remedies. He reported the
acts of torture to which he was subjected to the judicial authorities on several occasions in
the presence of witnesses, and his complaints were detailed in the records. However, no
investigation was opened into the allegations. The Moroccan authorities’ refusal to
investigate the complainant’s allegations of torture was never notified officially; the judicial
authorities simply decided to take no action. Furthermore, such a refusal cannot be appealed.
At the hearing on 8 February 2013, the complainant’s lawyer asked the military
investigating judge for permission to question the persons who had drafted the record of the
interrogations about the conditions in which the confession had been obtained. His request
was rejected. In its interim order of 8 February 2013, the military court took note of the
allegations of torture but failed to act upon them. Impunity for acts of torture was
denounced by the Committee in its concluding observations on Morocco (see
CAT/C/MAR/CO/4, para. 16).4
3.7
The military justice system does not provide for two-tier proceedings; accordingly,
the ruling of the military court cannot be appealed. The complainant lodged an appeal in
cassation in February 2013 but, more than a year later, he had still not received any reply.
Even if the appeal were granted, the judge would not re-examine the case on the merits
since, pursuant to articles 568 and 586 of the Moroccan Code of Criminal Procedure, the
Court of Cassation may only rule on points of law and not on matters of fact. In the
complainant’s case, the powers of the Court of Cassation are all the more limited because
torture does not feature among the matters submitted for consideration to the military court
by the prosecutor, who has sole discretion to prosecute. Therefore, the judges could not take
4
4
The complainant also refers to the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (see A/HRC/22/53/Add.2, paras. 28 and 29).
GE.17-06158