CAT/C/34/D/212/2002
page 4
The complaint
3.1
The complainant alleges that article 2 of the Convention has been violated because the
various acts of the Spanish political and judicial authorities effectively legitimize the practice of
torture, leading torturers to believe that they are virtually immune from prosecution, and
demonstrating that the authorities condone serious ill-treatment that can be classified as torture.
3.2
The complainant alleges a violation of article 4 of the Convention. He argues that an
example should be made of State officials found guilty of torture. According to him, both the
reductions in prison terms and the pardons granted to the torturers violate the right of victims to
obtain effective justice. He claims that the authorities of the State party, by taking decisions that
effectively reduce the sentences and the actual punishment meted out to State officials convicted
of torture, have violated article 4 of the Convention.
3.3
He further claims that there has been a violation of article 14 of the Convention, since
the pardoning of the civil guards is tantamount to denying the fact of the complainant’s torture
and suffering. According to the complainant, the State party should have redressed the wrong
he had suffered as a victim of torture and taken steps to ensure that such acts did not happen
again. He adds that the pardon accorded to the torturers encourages the practice of torture within
the Civil Guard. According to the complainant, remedial measures cover all the damages
suffered by the victim, including restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and
guarantees of non-repetition, as well as prevention, investigation, and punishment of the persons
responsible. In this regard, he cites the studies carried out by the United Nations Commission on
Human Rights on the impunity of perpetrators of violations of human rights and on the right to
restitution, compensation and rehabilitation for victims of grave violations of human rights,
as well as the judgement of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of
Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras.
3.4
The complainant believes that systematic practice in the State party, exemplified by
failure to investigate cases of torture promptly and impartially, protracted investigations, the
imposition of minimum sentences, the retention in the security bodies of persons accused of
torture and the promotion, decoration and pardoning of persons accused of torture, allows torture
to go unpunished. He refers to the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee with
reference to the second, third and fourth periodic reports submitted by the State party, in which it
expressed concern at the lenient sentences imposed on persons accused of torture and
recommended that the State party impose appropriate punishments.
State party’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint
4.1
The State party considers the complaint inadmissible because it says that the complainant
has failed to exhaust domestic remedies. It argues that the complainant should have appealed
against the royal decrees of 1999 that granted the pardons. It states that both the Supreme Court
and the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes have held that a pardon may be subject to judicial
review. It adds that the Convention against Torture has been incorporated into domestic law and
may be invoked directly before the courts and, if the complainant maintains that granting
pardons violates the Convention, he should have put this argument to the Spanish courts.