United Nations Human Rights Website - Treaty Bodies Database - Document - Jurispr... Page 3 of 4

3.3 As a further ground for inadmissibility, the State party refers to the authors' submission to
the effect that the same complaint had been forwarded to the European Commission of Human
Rights and to the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, both in Strasbourg.
Examination by these bodies would render the communication inadmissible under article 22,
paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention.
3.4 The State party denies the allegations that Mr. and Mrs. E. were subjected to torture or ill
treatment upon their arrest in January 1992 or subsequently during their detention. It submits
copies of the reports of the medical doctors who examined them every day during the first five
days of detention, as well as subsequent reports.
Author's comments:
4.1 With regard to the simultaneous submission of the same matter to two European instances of
investigation or settlement, the authors claim not to know whether those bodies are currently
investigating the cases of Mr. and Mrs. E.
4.2 With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the authors refer to the cases No.
205/92 concerning Mrs. E., before the Juzgado de Instrucción No. 44 of Madrid and No. 113/92
concerning Mr. E., before the Juzgado de Instrucción of Alcalá de Henares, and Nos. 482/92
and 211/94, before the Juzgado de Instrucción No. 40 of Madrid. The authors claim that the
investigations are not being conducted with due diligence. With regard to the closing of the
investigation in case No. 205/92, Mrs. E. is endeavouring to obtain a formal notification with a
view to reopening the case.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee:
5.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee against
Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention.
5.2 The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of
the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another
procedure of international investigation or settlement.
5.3 Article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention precludes the Committee from considering
any communication unless it has ascertained that all available domestic remedies have been
exhausted. The authors concede that two matters are currently under judicial investigation in
Spain. Accordingly, the Committee finds that the requirements of article 2, paragraph 5 (b), of
the Convention have not been met.
6. The Committee therefore decides:
(a) that the communication is inadmissible;
(b) that this decision may be reviewed under rule 109 of the Committee's rules of procedure
upon receipt of a written request by or on behalf of the alleged victims containing information
to the effect that the reasons for inadmissibility no longer apply;
(c) that this decision shall be communicated to the authors and to the State party.
[Done in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the original version.]

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Geneva, Switzerland



Select target paragraph3