CAT/C/20/D/59/1996
page 4
report on 22 November 1994. On 4 April 1995, Court No. 44 issued an order
which gave a detailed account of the medical tests conducted and concluded
with the decision to shelve the proceedings definitively.
3.4
The State party submitted that from 9 September 1994, when
Mrs. Blanco Abad applied in writing for the stay to be revoked, up to the
aforementioned order to shelve the case definitively, the record shows not
a single written communication from Mrs. Blanco Abad calling for an
investigation or presenting any evidence.
3.5
On 19 April 1995, Mrs. Blanco Abad applied for reconsideration of the
earlier decision to shelve the proceedings. On 19 May 1995 Court No. 44
turned the application down. On 5 September 1995 the Provincial High Court in
Madrid also rejected the appeal. On 6 October 1995 Mrs. Blanco Abad applied
for a remedy of amparo before the Constitutional Court, emphasizing the
subjective evaluation of the medical examinations. The Constitutional Court
considered the judicial decisions in question and pronounced them
well-founded, with reasoning that could “not be challenged as manifestly
unreasonable or arbitrary”.
3.6
The State party pointed out that less than 15 months had elapsed between
the reopening of the investigation and the Constitutional Court’s decision.
The investigation had been reopened for six months, and during those six
months Mrs. Blanco Abad neither took any action nor submitted anything at all
in writing. The remaining nine months were taken up with the application for
reconsideration, the appeal before the High Court and the amparo proceedings
before the Constitutional Court.
3.7
For the above reasons, it was submitted that Mrs. Blanco Abad’s
representations, over two years after the event, in investigations instituted
in response to an official act, had been promptly and impartially examined.
The State party therefore submits that no violation of article 13 of the
Convention has occurred.
Comments by the author
4.1
In her comments on the State party’s submission, the author stated that
by decision of the National High Court dated 26 December 1995, she was
sentenced to seven years’ ordinary imprisonment and a fine. The judgement
observes:
“The defence initially sought annulment and suspension of the judgement
on the grounds of the torture undergone by the accused during detention
and while being held at the police stations. The Criminal Division, in
view of the abundant and always detailed testimony offered not only by
the accused but also by the witnesses called, acknowledges that this
might have occurred. Hence its decision to take no account of the
statements to the police, which are invalid.”
4.2
The author argued that the only evidence against her were the pleas
entered by two co-defendants, her husband, Mr. Josu Eguskiza, and
Mr. Juan Ramón Rojo, which incriminated her, and that, notwithstanding the