CCPR/C/86/992/2001 page 6 4.2 The author could have referred the case directly to the investigating magistrate of the Tribunal of Constantine, had the Director of Public Prosecutions failed to act (the latter has a discretion as to whether or not to pursue any matter before it).3 This direct referral is provided for in articles 724 and 735 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and would have resulted in the initiation of a public action (action publique). Further, any decisions of the investigating magistrate pursuant to those articles may be appealed to the Indictment Division (Chambre d’accusation).6 4.3 Further, the author could have lodged an action founded on tort against the State party (contentieux relatif à la responsabilité civile de l’Etat)7 which grants victims the right, independently of any decision in the criminal action, to submit a case to the competent administrative authorities and obtain damages and interest. The State party concludes that the most relevant domestic remedies have not been exhausted, that these remedies are frequently used, and lead to satisfactory results. 4.4 Subsidiarily, the State party submits some information on the merits of the case. Mr. Saker was arrested in June 1994 by the judicial police of the Wilaya of Constantine, on suspicion that he was a member of a terrorist group which had perpetrated a number of attacks in the region. After he had been heard, and as it had not been possible to confirm that he belonged to the terrorist group, the judicial police released him from custody and transferred him to the military branch of the judicial police for further questioning. Mr. Saker was released after one day by the military branch of the judicial police. He is wanted in connection with an arrest warrant issued by the investigating magistrate of Constantine, in an investigation against 23 persons, including Mr. Saker, who all allegedly belong to a terrorist group. This arrest warrant remains valid as Mr. Saker is a fugitive. A judgement in absentia was rendered against him and his co-accused on 29 July 1995 by the criminal division of the Court of Constantine. 5.1 By letter of 22 April 2002, counsel contends that the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies has been fulfilled. 5.2 Further to the petition lodged by the author on 20 January 1996, the author was summoned on 20 March 1999 by the investigating magistrate of the 3rd chamber of the Tribunal of Constantine. During the hearing with the judge, she was informed that the matter of the disappearance of her husband had been registered (Case 32/134) and was being investigated. The judge proceeded to question her as to the circumstances of Mr. Saker’s arrest. Since that day the public action (action publique) has been pending. According to the author, the opening of this investigation precludes her from using the procedure highlighted by the State party and provided for in articles 72 and 73 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 5.3 Further, the author is precluded from lodging an action founded on tort against the State party until the criminal judge rules on the petition against the security services of the Wilaya of Constantine: the Criminal Procedure Code states that civil actions are stayed until a decision is reached in the public action.8 In any event, the author claims that the referral of the matter to an administrative body, when the matter is principally criminal in nature (in this instance punishable by the Criminal Procedure Code (art. 113, para. 2)), is inappropriate.