CAT/C/20/D/59/1996 page 3 The facts as submitted by the author 2.1 The author was detained along with her husband, Josu Eguskiza, on 29 January 1992 by officers of the Guardia Civil for alleged involvement in activities on behalf of the armed gang ETA. She alleges that she was mistreated between 29 January and 2 February 1992, when she was kept incommunicado under anti-terrorist legislation. 2.2 Brought before Madrid Court of Criminal Investigation No. 44 for preliminary investigation No. 205/92 on 13 March 1992, the author described the mistreatment and torture to which she had been subjected while in the custody of the Guardia Civil. The preliminary investigation had been instituted by the court upon receiving, from the Director of Carabanchel Women’s Penitentiary Centre, the report of the doctor who had examined the author and observed bruises upon her entry into the Centre on 3 February 1992. 2.3 On 2 February 1993 the court ordered a stay of proceedings, not considering the incident reported to be a penal offence. Following an appeal, Court No. 44 granted permission on 13 October 1994 to continue with criminal proceedings. The judge handed down an order dated 4 April 1994 to shelve proceedings definitively. The Provincial High Court confirmed this decision by order dated 5 September 1995. An application for remedy of amparo filed with the Constitutional Court against the Provincial High Court’s order was dismissed on 29 January 1996. State party’s observations on the admissibility of the communication 3.1 In its submission of 17 January 1997, the State party pointed out that since 3 February 1992 Mrs. Blanco Abad had been assigned up to seven lawyers to represent and defend her. Despite this, Mrs. Blanco Abad had not formally reported any mistreatment. It submitted that the legal proceedings were set in train by the official transmission to the court of the report of the medical check-up on the author conducted when she entered the Madrid Penitentiary Centre on 3 February 1992. That is, the only legal investigations of alleged mistreatment were instituted not in response to a report by the individual concerned, nor by her family, nor by any of her seven lawyers, but rather as the result of an official procedure enshrined in the regulations to safeguard human rights. Not until 30 May 1994, two years and three months after the event, did the author send a written communication to Court of Investigation No. 44 designating three legal representatives. 3.2 The State party admitted that, with the decision of the Constitutional Court on 29 January 1996, all domestic remedies had been exhausted. 3.3 In reference to article 13 of the Convention, the State party confirmed that by letter of 9 September 1994 Mrs. Blanco Abad’s counsel, had appealed against the stay of the officially instituted investigations. On 13 October 1994 Court No. 44 annulled the stay of proceedings, allowing them to continue, and called for an expert report to be prepared. Mrs. Blanco Abad did not appeal against the examination authorized; neither did she insist on other investigations. The medical examiner submitted his

Select target paragraph3