them. The author's claim that his right to physical integrity had been violated
was therefore completely unfounded.
The complaint
3.1 The author claims that the facts amount to a violation by Spain of article
12 of the Convention because the judicial authorities failed to conduct a
prompt and impartial investigation despite the fact that there were
reasonable grounds to believe that acts of torture or ill-treatment had been
committed. Neither the author nor the witnesses nor the doctor who had
testified to the assault was questioned. Moreover, the procedure envisaged
in domestic legislation for the crime of torture had not been followed.
3.2 The author does not share the view of the judicial authorities that it was
his inaction that determined the outcome of the legal proceedings. He
considers that there was a violation of article 13 of the Convention,
according to which it is enough for the victim simply to bring the facts to the
attention of an authority of the State. Article 13 does not require the formal
lodging of a complaint (a step that had been taken in his case) or an express
statement of intent to institute and sustain a criminal action arising from the
offence.
The State party's observations concerning admissibility
4. In its statement of 8 June 2000, the State party notes that the author did
not indicate at any stage that the procedure for serious offences was to be
applied to his complaint. On the contrary, at the minor-offence proceedings
his counsel requested that his complaint against the police should be joined
thereto. That means that he consented to his case being dealt with in the
context of minor-offence proceedings. Court No. 6 summoned the author to
attend the minor-offence proceedings "as complainant and defendant".
However, neither he nor his counsel turned up for the proceedings at which
all the evidence and findings were to be presented. Responsibility for failure
to support a complaint and to present a defence against charges therefore
lies with the person who failed to appear. Following his failure to attend, the
author neither entered a plea nor submitted a document challenging the
minor-offence procedure. It was only on appeal that the author complained,
for the first time, of the failure to apply the procedure for serious offences to
his complaint. But that charge was inconsistent with his previous conduct
and was also untimely, since it was not filed in time or in due form, although
the author had enjoyed the assistance of counsel from the outset. The
communication should therefore be declared inadmissible on the ground of
failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
The author's comments