CAT/C/68/D/818/2017
render assistance, was a way to keep her injuries from being documented and, above all, to
cause her pain.3
3.3
Lastly, the complainant claims that she was denied a full and impartial judicial
process. Her complaint was dismissed before a trial could be held, merely on the strength of
the denials by the accused persons. The investigation showed that she had a broken nose,
which, objectively considered, must have been caused while she was in custody, during
which time she was not given access to medical care. The complainant draws attention to
the prevailing situation in Spain, in which the State party systematically denies the practice
of ill-treatment and torture.4
3.4
The complainant asks the Committee to request that the State party (a) thoroughly
investigate the torture and ill-treatment to which she was subjected, taking appropriate
action against those responsible for such treatment; and (b) ensure that she receives full and
adequate compensation for the harm she has suffered.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
The State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits on 21
December 2017. It concluded that the communication is inadmissible as manifestly
unfounded and abusive (rule 113 (b) of the rules of procedure); as incompatible with the
provisions of the Convention (rule 113 (c)); and because domestic remedies have not been
exhausted (rule 113 (e)).
4.2
Regarding the failure to inform the complainant of her rights when she was arrested,
the State party argues that: (a) as the arrest was for alleged theft, the matter falls outside the
material scope of the Convention and would come under the scope of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and (b) since it is clear that no such matter was
raised before the domestic courts, either in the proceedings for alleged injuries or in the
parallel proceedings in which the complainant was investigated for theft, domestic remedies
have not been exhausted.
4.3
In reply to the complainant’s claim regarding the lack of a full, fair and impartial
judicial process, the State party emphasizes that the complainant’s allegations led to the
institution of criminal proceedings, that all evidence requested by the parties was produced,
that she was able to appeal to a higher jurisdiction, that the decision is not unreasonable and
that there are no grounds to argue that the judges who conducted the proceedings were
biased. The State party stresses in particular that in the doctor’s witness statement that is
also mentioned by the complainant, it is stated that, although the complainant was not
bleeding, she did have visible swelling caused by the fracture of the nasal bone and that the
swelling “was obvious, both to [him], as a doctor, and to anyone else”. In addition, the
complainant claims that her injuries were caused by the blows she received from the police
officers when they arrested her, the blow against the car door and the blows she received
when she hit the partition in the car – in other words, she would have received those blows
to the face by the time she reached the police station. However, in the images captured as
the complainant entered and left the station, she shows no signs of injury. 5
4.4
In response to the claim of treatment amounting to torture or inhuman and degrading
treatment, the State party argues that a reading of the two decisions of the Provincial High
3
4
5
GE.20-00488
The complainant cites the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement
Officials.
The complainant cites a report by the Coordinadora para la Prevención y Denuncia de la Tortura
(Coordinating Committee for the Prevention and Reporting of Torture), which indicates that, over a
period of ten years, 7,582 people reported being victims of torture and that, out of 4,361 officials
accused of torture, assault and/or ill-treatment between 2009 and 2012, only 29 were convicted. The
complainant also cites a 2015 report on Spain submitted to the Committee by Amnesty International,
which reports that judicial complaints are dismissed for lack of evidence, even if there is medical
information and other credible supporting evidence, and that police officers fail to take action to
prevent or report ill-treatment by colleagues and tend to unite in defence of each other, which leads to
cover-ups of unlawful conduct.
In this connection, the State party cites the two decisions of the Provincial High Court, according to
which the complainant’s statements cannot be considered credible, as the kind of injury that she
alleges to have received, as also described by the doctor, cannot be reconciled with the complete
absence of any sign of such injuries in the stills from the police station security cameras.
3