CAT/C/30/D/219/2002
page 4
second of four years and three months. However, the Audiencia Nacional acquitted him of the
charges in relation to the storage of firearms and to the possession of explosives due to lack of
proof that he had known about the existence of these materials, noting that he had rented the
apartment at calle Padilla at the request and for the use of a friend, Dolores Lopez Resin
(“Lola”). The judgement states that, immediately following the search of that apartment, the
convict assisted the escape of several members of the commando “Barcelona” by renting, and
changing the licence plates of, a car which he, together with these members, used to leave
Barcelona.
2.6
The complainant was arrested by Swiss police when crossing the Austrian-Swiss
border at St. Margrethen on 14 March 2002, on the basis of a Spanish search warrant,
dated 3 June 1994. She was provisionally detained, pending a final decision on her extradition to
Spain. During a hearing on 20 March 2002, she refused to consent to a simplified extradition
procedure. By diplomatic note of 22 April 2002, Spain submitted an extradition request to the
State party, based on an international arrest warrant dated 1 April 2002, issued by the Juzgado
Central de Instrucción No. 4 at the Audiencia Nacional. This warrant is based on the same
charges as the original arrest warrant and the writ of indictment against both the complainant and
Mr. Ramos Vega.
2.7
By letter of 7 June 2002, the complainant, through counsel, asked the Federal Office of
Justice to reject the extradition request of the Spanish Government, claiming that by referring the
criminal proceedings to the German authorities, Spain had lost the competence to prosecute the
complainant, thus precluding the complainant’s extradition to that country.3 Moreover, the fact
that the Spanish authorities, in their extradition request to the State party, had deliberately not
revealed who actually rented the apartment at calle Padilla, indicated that the complainant was
to be tried for political rather than juridical reasons. Since political offences were not
extraditable,4 counsel argued that, contrary to the general rule that decisions on extraditions were
purely a formal matter, the State party was obliged to examine whether a reasonable suspicion of
an offence existed with respect to the complainant, in the absence of any link with the firearms
and explosives found in the calle Padilla apartment, or with the escape vehicle. In counsel’s
opinion, the complainant’s extradition is also precluded by the fact that the Spanish arrest
warrant was based on testimony which had allegedly been extracted from Mr. San Epifanio by
torture.
2.8
By decision of 8 August 2002, the Federal Office of Justice granted the Spanish
extradition request, subject to the condition that the complainant was not to be tried for political
motivations to commit the alleged offences and that the severity of punishment was not to be
increased on the basis of such a motivation. This decision was based on the following
considerations: (1) that the examination of reciprocal criminal liability was based on the facts set
out in the extradition request, the evaluation of facts and evidence and matters of innocence or
guilt being reserved to the Spanish courts; (2) that no issue of ne bis in idem arose since the
German authorities, for lack of territorial competence, had not exhaustively dealt with these
questions; (3) that the charges brought against the complainant were not of a purely political
nature; (4) that the complainant was not at direct and personal risk of being tortured during