Prosecution Service asking it to inform the Home Office in advance in case it
decided to file an appeal before the Courts on the following day. Copy of this letter
was sent to the Audiencia Nacional by the Spanish Ministry for Foreign Affairs
only on 2 March at 11:18 hours, after the Spanish press had reported on it. Without
waiting to receive the letter, the Audiencia Nacional, on 2 March, issued an order
instructing the Crown Prosecution Service to file an appeal against the decision to
release General Pinochet. The order was faxed at 10 a.m. to the Spanish Foreign
Minister, who decided not to forward it to the Crown Prosecution Service and
informed the press accordingly. In view of the fact that an appeal had not been
filed, the Home Secretary, at 2 p.m., authorized the departure of General Pinochet's
flight for Chile.
2.10 With respect to the exhaustion of domestic remedies in Spain, the
complainant states that he filed a complaint against D. Abel Matutes Juan, the then
Minister for Foreign Affairs, before the Spanish Supreme Court for refusing to
cooperate with the Judiciary. In a resolution dated 1 February 2000, the Spanish
Supreme Court refused to examine the complaint. The complainant then filed an
appeal against the Resolution, which was also rejected on 22 February 2000. On 24
February 2000, the complainant filed a new complaint against the Minister for
Foreign Affairs for concealing documents relevant to the extradition process. The
Supreme Court refused to examine this complaint in Resolutions dated 6 March
and 13 April 2000. On 16 March 2000, the complainant filed a third complaint
against the Minister for failing to transmit submissions of the Audiencia Nacional
to the Crown Prosecution Service. This complaint was dismissed by Resolutions
dated 28 April and 3 May 2000.
2.11 The complainant states that the same matter has not been submitted to any
other
international
procedure
of
investigation
or
settlement.
The complaint
3.1 The complainant argues that under Spanish law the judicial authorities are in
control of the extradition process and that the Executive has the obligation to
comply with the judicial authorities. He claims that in the case at hand, by failing
to follow the instructions of the judicial authorities and promptly forward the
relevant documents to the British counterpart, the Spanish Minister for Foreign
Affairs obstructed the extradition process and did not act in an impartial manner, in
contravention of articles 8, 9, 13 and 14 of the Convention.
3.2 The complainant claims, inter alia, that Spain violated its obligations under the
Convention by not pressing with all due diligence its extradition request. In this
context the complainant invokes article 13 of the Convention, which stipulates in
part that "Each State party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been
subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain
to, and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by, its competent