authorities." It is argued that the deliberate obstruction of the extradition process
violated the complainant's rights under article 13 of the Convention to have his
case examined by competent authorities and to obtain compensation under article
14 of the Convention.
3.3 The complainant also invokes article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention, which
stipulates that "States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of
assistance in connection with criminal proceedings brought in respect of any of the
offences referred to in article 4 ". It is argued that Spain's handling of the
extradition process failed to meet this requirement.
Observations by the State party
4.1 By note verbale of 6 February 2001, the State party submitted its observations,
challenging
admissibility
on
several
grounds.
4.2 The State party considers the communication inadmissible because the
complainant lacks the quality of "victim" and explains that in the Spanish judicial
proceedings that led to the request by Spain for the extradition of General
Pinochet, the complainant was involved not as a victim or as a civil party to the
proceedings, but rather in his capacity as a witness. In this connection the State
party quotes the original complaint which stated that "the witness can be
interrogated about the general practice of torture against Spanish citizens and
citizens of other countries".
4.3 The State party further argues that the communication is inadmissible because
of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, since at the time of submission the
complainant was in the process of appealing certain Resolutions. Moreover, it is
stated that the complainant failed to appeal to the Constitutional Court (Tribunal
Constitucional) by way of amparo. It is submitted that appeals inamparo are
effective remedies in Spain, and have been successful in many other cases of
Resolutions dismissing complaints.
4.4 By note verbale of 5 June 2001 the State party reiterates the arguments
contained in its earlier submission and submits that the complaint should be
declared inadmissible because it falls outside the scope of the Convention, bearing
in mind that (1) the complainant does not claim to be a victim of torture
perpetrated by the Spanish authorities, (2) the complainant did not claim to be a
victim of torture in the Spanish proceedings against General Pinochet. In this
sense, the State party adds that the complaint is in the nature of a laboratory case in
order to test the scope of the Convention. The State party submits that the
communication is manifestly ill-founded, as the articles of the Convention do not
impose such far-reaching obligations on State parties, and certainly not on State
parties in whose territory the person accused of torture is not found. Moreover,
with regard to a right to compensation under article 14 of the Convention, the State