COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE REVIEWS REPORT OF SPAIN

The Committee against Torture this morning concluded its consideration of the fifth periodic report of Spain on the efforts of that country to give effect to the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Javier Garrigues, Permanent Representative of Spain to the United Nations Office at Geneva, briefly highlighted major achievements and contributions of Spain in the field of prevention of ill-treatment and torture, including the creation of a national mechanism for the prevention of torture, in accord with the Optional Protocol to the Convention, and the fact that Spain was among the main donors to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture and to the special fund set out in the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture.

Supplying complementary information on efforts by Spain to prevent torture taken during the reporting period, Maria Luisa García, State Attorney to the Constitutional Court and to the European Court of Human Rights, among others, highlighted that the Constitutional Court had strengthened the protection applicable to prevent mistreatment of detainees held incommunicado. Since 2008, the Court had laid special emphasis on the fact that, in view of the particular vulnerability of incommunicado detainees and the severe breach of fundamental rights provoked by torture and ill treatment, judges had the duty to exhaust all possibilities of investigation in order to clarify the truth of the situation. To that end, technical facilities were being installed in police premises in order to record the entire duration of incommunicado detainees' stay there. The Government, moreover, had undertaken to promote reforms guaranteeing that incommunicado detainees could be examined, in addition to an examination by the forensic doctor, by another doctor working with the public healthcare system and freely appointed by the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture.

Many of the questions by Experts centred on the practice of incommunicado detention for suspects in State security cases. Claudio Grossman, the Committee Chairperson serving as rapporteur for the report of Spain, said the Committee's position was that incommunicado detention of any kind was not compatible with the prevention of torture, and noted reports that 70 per cent of the incommunicado detainees in the Basque country had complained of ill-treatment or torture. Further, he did not understand the reasoning behind Spain's decision not to allow individuals held incommunicado to be examined by a private doctor of their own choosing and was concerned about the lack of a free choice of lawyers for accused in national security cases.

Abdoulaye Gaye, the Committee Expert serving as co-Rapporteur, was concerned by statistics on complaints in Spain's written replies, as well as how they had been dealt with. From 2003 through 2008, 240 complaints had been registered, of which only 2 had resulted in convictions. The rest had either been declared inadmissible or only disciplinary measures had been taken. A similar concern were the 678 deaths in prisons, either through suicide or by violence, which had occurred during the same time period, and that, once again, no one had been convicted in connection with any of those deaths, suggesting a climate of impunity.

Other issues raised by Experts included lengthy investigations into torture complaints; the number of returns that were made on the basis of diplomatic assurances; and a lack of special measures to protect female prisoners against violence, harassment or sexual violence. An Expert was particularly concerned by the high number of protection orders that had been rejected, noting that one quarter of the women murdered by their spouses in 2007 had been refused protection orders by the Public Prosecutor.

In its replies, Spain provided information relating to, inter alia, cases brought on complaints of torture and ill-treatment and sanctions issued; the incommunicado detention regime; conditions in prisons and other detention facilities; mass arrests of foreigners; the use of Tasers; extraordinary renditions; protections for asylum-seekers; the situation of foreign unaccompanied minors; protections for foreign women facing domestic violence; and a high number of protection orders not granted.

The delegation of Spain also included representatives from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation; the Ministry of Justice; the Ministry of the Interior; the President's Office; the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs; the Ministry of Equality; and the Permanent Mission of Spain in Geneva.

Spain is among the 146 States parties to the Convention and as such it must present periodic reports to the Committee on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention. The Committee will submit its conclusions and recommendations on the report of Spain, which it reviewed over the course of two meetings, towards the end of the session on Friday, 20 November.

When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Monday, 16 November, it will discuss the status of follow-up to articles 19 (reporting obligations) and 22 (individual communications) of the Convention.

Report of Spain

The fifth periodic report of Spain (CAT/C/ESP/5) says that public authorities in Spain are doing their utmost to prevent and investigate cases of torture and ill-treatment, applying a zero tolerance policy and ensuring that those responsible are held fully accountable for their actions. As a result, there has been a noticeable reduction in the number of documented cases of torture or ill-treatment, as shown in the annual reports of the Ombudsman (a parliamentary high commissioner charged with defending the people’s rights and freedoms in their dealings with the administration). The 2005 report of the Ombudsman notes only two allegations of ill-treatment and two of improper behaviour on the part of the State security forces. The 2006 report notes only one allegation of ill-treatment at the hands of the State security forces and none of improper behaviour by them towards members of the public.

Measures adopted following the submission of the fourth periodic report with a view to improving relevant human rights guarantees included 2005 State Security Secretariat instructions on registering juvenile detainees; on procedures to be followed in case of a death in police custody; on personal search methods, strengthening guarantees concerning strip searches of persons in a police facility; and on actions, protocols, deadlines and communication between the Inspectorate for Security Personnel and Services and the directorates-general of the police and the Guardia Civil. The Inspectorate reports directly to the Minister of State for Security and its responsibilities include inspection, monitoring and evaluation of facilities and units of the police and the Guardia Civil, as well as the conduct of their officers in the performance of their duties. In addition, a 2007 instruction, on the procedure for processing complaints and suggestions from the public, improves the procedure for submitting and handling complaints and requests in respect of any action taken by the State security forces; and a new handbook on how to deal with situations arising in police custody will be issued shortly, to inform police officers about the most effective techniques for detaining and subduing detainees with the use of minimal force.

Presentation of Report

JAVIER GARRIGUES, Permanent Representative of Spain to the United Nations Office at Geneva, briefly highlighted major achievements and contributions of Spain in the field of prevention of ill-treatment and torture, including the creation of a national mechanism for the prevention of torture, in accord with the Optional Protocol to the Convention and the fact that Spain was among the main donors to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture and to the special fund set out in the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture.

MARIA LUISA GARCÍA, State Attorney to the Constitutional Court and to the European Court of Human Rights of Spain, said the Spanish Constitution of 1978, together with the ongoing process of signing and ratification of numerous international human rights treaties by Spain, had contributed to the effective development of those rights. Indeed, the promotion and defence of human rights was one of the main priorities in the policies adopted by the Government. In that regard, on the occasion of the thirtieth anniversary of the Constitution, the Council of Ministers had approved a Human Rights Action Plan. That plan was not a mere declaration of principles, but constituted a specific political commitment that was applied via a series of measures the Government wished to implement. Some of those were derived from the international obligations Spain had undertaken; others developed political priorities of the Government in the field of human rights.

Part of the content of that plan was related, directly or indirectly, to the issues of specific interest to the Convention against Torture, Ms. García highlighted. Among measures already taken in that connection, the Parliament had recently established the National Preventive Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture, fulfilling Spain's obligation under the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. The National Preventive Mechanism was headed by the Ombudsman's Office, a body that was independent of the Executive and unchallengeable in its functions, the chief of which, as the High Commissioner of the Spanish Parliament, was the defence of human rights.

With regard to gender violence and the promotion of equality, in 2004 Parliament had approved the Organic Law on Measures for the Comprehensive Protection against Gender Violence, followed in 2007 by the Organic Law for the Effective Equality of Men and Women. Spain thus stood at the forefront in the struggle against gender violence and in favour of the effective equality of women, Ms. García underlined.

Moreover, in 2009, the Government had ratified the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings and had drawn up a comprehensive plan of action against trafficking in human beings for purposes of sexual exploitation. That plan required amendments to the Penal code, the Immigration Law and the Code of Criminal Procedure, which had now been incorporated into the new Law to Regulate the Right to Asylum and Subsidiary Protection, passed in October 2009. That law addressed the situation of particular vulnerability of asylum-seekers, who might have suffered torture, rape or other severe forms of psychological or sexual violence or been victims of trafficking.

On the issue of the rights of detainees during police custody, Ms. García noted that Spain was making significant efforts in training police officers and forensic doctors so that they were alert to any possible case of mistreatment. Furthermore, meetings were planned at which police and State security forces would be informed of the functions and scope of international bodies for the defence of human rights, such as the Committee against Torture.

In addition, the Constitutional Court, through a judgement binding on all public powers in Spain, had strengthened the protection applicable to prevent mistreatment of detainees held incommunicado. Since 2008, the Court had laid special emphasis on the fact that, in view of the particular vulnerability of incommunicado detainees and the severe breach of fundamental rights provoked by torture and ill treatment, judges had the duty to exhaust all possibilities of investigation in order to clarify the truth of the situation. In accordance with the recommendation made by human rights organizations, therefore, technical facilities were being installed in police premises in order to record the entire duration of incommunicado detainees stay there. The Government, moreover, had undertaken to promote reforms guaranteeing that incommunicado detainees could be examined, in addition to an examination by the forensic doctor, by another doctor working with the public healthcare system and freely appointed by the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture.

Turning to the area of immigration, Ms. García observed that the Strategic Plan for Citizenship and Integration 2007-2010 was an important advance in the comprehensive management of immigration from the standpoint of coexistence and the recognition of rights. Important aspects of that Plan included the Fund to Support the Reception and Integration of Immigrants and to Enhance their Opportunities in Education, which had been an item on the national budget since 2005. Furthermore, the Plan for Human Rights had favoured the approval or implementation of instruments to strengthen the legal position of immigrants, such as the Comprehensive Law on Equal Treatment and Non-discrimination; the National Comprehensive Strategy of Action against Racism and Xenophobia; the Strategic Plan for Equal Opportunities; and the amendment to the Organic Law on Immigration, which was at an advanced stage in its passage through Parliament, and which had been drafted in accordance with the corresponding judgements of the Constitutional Court, which since 2007 had placed Spanish nationals and foreigners, including those without documentation, on an equal basis as regarded practically all civil rights.

Regarding protection afforded to unaccompanied minors who arrived in Spain, the top priority of the Spanish authorities in that regard was the overriding interest of the minor. For that reason, their return could only be ordered when, having given the minor a hearing and having obtained information from the authorities of the minor's country of origin, it was possible to perform an effective family reunification without risk to the minor. In addition, Spain had signed the Council of Europe Convention on the protection of children against exploitation and sexual abuse this year, Ms. García added.

Ms. García was aware of the Committee's concern regarding the situation of unaccompanied foreign minors arriving in the Canary Islands. To improve conditions in reception centres for minors there, an important effort had been made since 2006, including through increasing the financial provisions made to improve those facilities.

In recent years, the Government had also striven to facilitate access to asylum procedures for those in need of international protection, including through the recently approved law, already mentioned, to regulate the right to asylum and subsidiary protection. The purpose of that new regulation was to achieve a Common European System for Asylum to guarantee the maximum level of protection for refugees and the persecuted.

Questions Raised by Committee Experts

CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, the Committee Chairperson serving as Rapporteur for the report of Spain, appreciated a number of measures taken by Spain that related to the implementation of the Convention, including the adoption of the National Human Rights Plan and numerous new laws.

With regard to the definition of torture in Spanish law, and the amendment of the criminal law to include torture for reasons of discrimination, Mr. Grossman asked if there had been any cases brought under that new provision? He also wondered if the Convention was directly applicable in the courts and if there were any examples of cases brought under its provisions.

Mr. Grossman still had concerns about the practice of incommunicado detention in Spain. The Committee's basic position was that incommunicado detention of any kind was not compatible with the prevention of torture. There was a fairly broad consensus on that issue by the international community, and concern about that practice in Spain had been expressed by other human rights instances as well, including by the Human Rights Committee. Also highlighted were reports about the situation of incommunicado detainees in the Basque country, 70 per cent of whom had complained of ill-treatment or torture.

There was also a concern that the medical forms used for detainees were not able to document signs of torture with sufficient accuracy and comprehensiveness. Furthermore, Mr. Grossman did not understand the reasoning behind Spain's decision not to allow individuals held incommunicado to be examined by a private doctor of their own choosing. He had just heard about the new measure to allow the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture to appoint a doctor, but that still did not fully satisfy him.

Similarly, Mr. Grossman had a concern about the lack of a free choice of lawyers for accused in national security cases (incommunicado detentions). Even understanding that the Government might have security concerns about lawyers acting in cahoots with their clients, there had to be a better way to resolve that issue.

Turning to the issue of non-refoulement and extraordinary renditions, Mr. Grossman asked how the investigation was going into the cases of extraordinary renditions that had occurred in Spain and what was being done to avoid further violations of this kind. He had heard that the Minister of Foreign Affairs had declared a zero tolerance for such acts in Spain.

With regard to returning migrants to their countries of origin, Mr. Grossman had information that 19 Senegalese had been returned from the Canary Islands and that the Police Union recognized that those individuals had subsequently been subjected to torture. What was being done about that? Furthermore, what was the Government's policy with regard to migrants found in territorial waters who were in need of assistance?

Mr. Grossman also asked what was meant by "less serious" and "more serious" offences of torture in Spanish law.

Raising the question of the law best known as the "law of historic memory", which applied to victims of the Spanish Civil War, providing for reparations of crimes against humanity, Mr. Grossman was concerned that it did not recognize the right to investigate cases of forced disappearance or help victims organizations to exhume their bodies. Even acknowledging the 1979 Amnesty Law, there were crimes for which there was no statute of limitations.

ABDOULAYE GAYE, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Spain, starting with training issues, had the impression from the information provided that there was currently a gap in human rights training for law enforcement agents. Moreover, he underscored the need for targeted training with regard to the particular vulnerability of incommunicado detainees as well as in dealing with the mentally ill in detention.

Mr. Gaye still had concerns about the situation of foreigners being held in detention centres, and in particular the Committee had information from the Ombudsperson supporting those concerns with the situation of foreign minors in detention.

Another issue was the transfer of detainees, in particular Basque detainees, to other areas of the country, Mr. Gaye said. That was contrary to the need to ensure the future social reinsertion of such individuals into society.

With respect to complaints of ill-treatment in custody or in detention, Mr. Gaye said that the delegation had provided the Committee with statistics on such complaints in its written replies, as well as how they had been dealt with. From 2003 through 2008, 240 complaints had been registered, of which only 2 had resulted in convictions. The rest had either been declared inadmissible or only disciplinary measures had been taken. He was particularly concerned to know, for cases where disciplinary measures were applied, if the victims then received reparation and rehabilitation.

A similar concern were the 678 deaths in prisons, either through suicide or by violence, which had occurred during the same time period, and that, once again, no one had been convicted in connection with any of those deaths, suggesting a climate of impunity, Mr. Gaye stressed.

Mr. Gaye was further concerned about the situation of female migrants in an irregular situation who were abused. If they complained to the police, they were then subject to a check into their immigration status. He also noted with concern reports that law enforcement agents used Tasers against suspects, although the Government had said that its official policy was that Tasers were prohibited.

Many other Experts reverted to the issue of incommunicado detentions and the system that applied for terror suspects. It was pointed out that terrorism suspects could be held for up to four years incommunicado, which seemed incompatible with a presumption of innocence and which provided ample time to torture suspects and coerce confessions and allow the traces of such torture to fade. Given that suspects could only be held incommunicado following a decision by a judge, an Expert asked what regime applied to such detainees while that judgement was pending? An Expert, echoing the Rapporteur's concerns about the inability of incommunicado detainees to choose their own lawyers or doctors, said that that practice was also incompatible with a presumption of innocence.

An Expert was concerned at the high number of orders of protection that were refused by judges in Spain. Out of 112,081 protection orders requested in the last three years, over 26,000 had been denied. Significantly, one quarter of the women murdered by their spouses in 2007 had been refused protection orders by the Public Prosecutor.

An Expert noted a severe reaction by Spain to the report of the-then Special Rapporteur on torture, Theo van Boven, including notes verbales and the departure of the Spanish delegation from the Council Chamber before the Special Rapporteur presented his replies to questions. That had not been case, however, with the report by the Special Rapporteur on the protection of human rights while countering terrorism, who had also drawn very strong conclusions regarding incommunicado detentions in his report. She asked why that was.

Other issues raised by Experts included lengthy investigations into torture complaints; the number of returns that were made on the basis of diplomatic assurances; whether diplomatic assurances were compatible with the Convention's non-refoulement provisions; a lack of special measures to protect female prisoners against violence, harassment or sexual violence; a lack of statistics on the ethnicity of persons convicted of torture, which could help in formulating a response to the problem; and information on the death penalty in Spain.

Response of Spain

Responding to questions just raised, the delegation began by reiterating the Spanish Government's zero tolerance policy regarding torture, and said that could in no way be derogated from in the fight against terrorism.

The articles in the Criminal Code relating to torture and ill-treatment had been applied in many cases, for example, the Supreme Court, between 2002 and 2009, had received 34 cases relating to the application of this sort of offence. More than 250 police agents and prison staff had been convicted for such offences during the same period, thereby demonstrating that Spanish judges were prepared to punish any excesses by such officials. So the delegation did not understand where the information had come from that between 2003 and 2008 there had only been 2 convictions for that sort of offence, as mentioned by an Expert. The real number was more than 250.

All incidents of torture were considered serious in Spanish legislation, the delegation stressed, as demonstrated by the fact that in law all acts of torture were subject to prison sentences.

The delegation clarified that the concept of a public official or authority as defined in the Criminal Code was anyone who participated in public functions, so it covered not only public officials strictly speaking but any individual undertaking such functions or participating in them. Therefore, the Spanish definition of torture, which did not specifically mention individuals acting on behalf of the State, was in conformity with the definition of torture as set out in the Convention.

On incommunicado detention, the delegation reminded members that investigation of the facts of such cases, involving terrorist organizations, required more complex police and judicial investigations, with international repercussions. The Constitutional Court had ruled that the incommunicado regime adopted under the law served to ensure constitutional values and enabled the State to fulfil its constitutional duty to protect its citizens. That legal regime ensured the rights of the individuals, as it required a judicial decision to accord such detention and constant direct personal monitoring of the detainee by the Judge.

While the concern had been raised over lengthy incommunicado detentions, which an Expert had observed could in and of itself present a form of torture, the delegation underscored that the average length of such detentions was not long and that, in 2009, there was no case in which incommunicado detention had lasted more than five days.

Regarding the appointment of ex officio lawyers for incommunicado detainees, in the interest of protecting detainees, Spanish law provided that that should be provided by an ex officio lawyer, with a minimum of 10 years' professional experience in criminal law, and selected by a fully independent lawyers' association. The State did not interfere in the selection process, but only served to pay the lawyer's fee. The practice of appointing ex officio lawyers in such cases had been approved in a ruling by the Constitutional Court and had been supported by a ruling in the European Court of Human Rights, the delegation noted.

The delegation also reminded the Committee that Spain was facing a very serious threat of active terrorism, which had caused over 1,000 deaths in recent years. There was no excuse for the practice of torture, but that situation did justify the existence of a regime of incommunicado communication that was well regulated and where the individual held was under constant surveillance.

As for the fact that incommunicado detainees were not allowed to select their own doctors, the delegation also enumerated the various guarantees of independence in the selection of a forensic doctor for them. While the Istanbul Protocol was not required, Spanish doctors did generally follow its practice.

Following the reform of the Code of Criminal Procedure, any incommunicado detainee who was not satisfied with the forensic doctor assigned for him had the right to demand a second opinion from another doctor, also appointed by the court. Furthermore, in future, all such detainees would routinely be examined, in addition to an examination by the forensic doctor, by another doctor working with the public healthcare system and freely appointed by the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture. It therefore could not be said that the Spanish Government did not make all possible efforts to ensure the individual's rights, while at the same time ensuring safeguards for such special cases.

As for the detention regime that applied while determining a detainee's status, the delegation said that if a police officer requested a detainee be kept in incommunicado detention, then the detainee was kept in police custody until a ruling was handed down by a judge, and that had to take place within 24 hours.

Concerning harm done to incommunicado detainees, the Human Rights Plan of the Government included a provision that normative and technical measures be taken to follow-up on the recommendations of international human rights bodies, including the permanent video surveillance of detainees kept in incommunicado detention. That had been set up and such surveillance was in place now in 50 per cent of all detention centres under the Ministry of Public Security, including in interrogation rooms.

Turning to the issue of sanctions for torture or ill-treatment, the delegation noted that even if only administrative sanctions were handed down, victims still had the same rights to reparations and rehabilitation.

Concerning the prison situation, the delegation said that prison cells were designed for double occupancy. The introduction of new prison facilities had reduced the 175 per cent occupancy rate reported to 140 per cent today. As of June 2004, Spain had built four new penitentiary centres and completed two extensions of existing centres, adding 4,000 cells to the 50,000 available. They had also completed construction of special reintegration centres and a unit for mothers. As a demonstration of Spain's commitment to continuing to improve its prisons, the 2010 budget for prisons showed a 5 per cent increase over that for 2009.

With reference to the dispersion of prisoners to facilities throughout the country, the delegation noted that one of the reasons for that was the security situation. There had been escapes and repeated escape attempts by armed gang members. This was also done with a view to the rehabilitation of the prisoner and their future social reinsertion: there was a need to break links of gang members in order to ensure that they abandoned violence in the future.

Drug consumption had fallen in prisons, following implementation of a number of programmes to reduce such consumption. Spain had also made head way in combating illness in prisons, in particular tuberculosis, and had been awarded three citations by the World Health Organization for its work in that regard. Measures to reduce suicides in prisons had also been successful, and they had reduced the rate of suicides by 50 per cent. Specifically on sexual harassment of detainees, there were only isolated incidents. A particular case in Malaga had led to the charging of seven police, who had been subject to disciplinary measures in 2006 (suspension). For the victims, all security measures under law were adopted, including under the new asylum law.

Health staff of prisons, including doctors and psychologists, received training on the Istanbul Protocol in their initial training, as well as on other European norms in this area. If a detainee said that he had received ill-treatment or had wounds that were caused by a staff member, a doctor was obliged to examine him. If wounds were found, a copy of the report had to be forwarded to the appropriate authorities for further investigation, and a copy was given to the detainee.

There were no cases of massive detention of foreigners in Spain, or round ups or raids of those in an irregular situation, the delegation stressed. A 2009 instruction by the Ministry had specifically set out that the implementation of the new asylum legislation should be carried out with regard to qualitative considerations only.

Regarding the use of Tasers, State Police, the Guardia Civil and the Basque Police did not use Tasers and for them the use of Tasers was prohibited. However, local or municipal police had considerable independence under the Constitution and the autonomous regimes. Arms were regulated locally, so it was up to those local police bodies to decide what arms they could use.

The Spanish Government had undertaken an exhaustive investigation to allegations that some Spanish airports could have been used for the transport of prisoners in an irregular way (extraordinary renditions), and it had been determined that no North American military flight had used Spanish bases or airports for such purposes. The Foreign Minister twice came before the Congress, giving public, detailed and extensive information on the matter. A Minister also came before the European Parliament in 2006, and information had also been provided to the Council of Europe. The Government was clear on the need to apply and uphold national and international law strictly in this area.

The delegation also outlined the status of a case in which a person had been sent back to his country of origin on the basis of a diplomatic assurance (that he would not be subject to torture or ill-treatment). Basically, decisions to return individuals to their countries were made on a case-by-case basis in Spain, and when such as decision was taken it was done on the basis that it was compatible with the requirements of article 3 (non-refoulement).

For asylum requests at border crossings, there was a framework of legal guarantees for each such request. Provided that an individual was determined to have freely expressed their will to seek asylum, free legal and interpretation service was provided; the request was communicated to the United Nations Refugee Agency; the request suspended any action to expel the person from the country or refoul them from the border; and the right to health care and social services was accorded.

Among protections for unaccompanied minors entering the country, Spain had signed agreements with Morocco and Senegal, which had been the source of many of the unaccompanied minors entering the country. As of April 2008 no Senegalese minors had been returned, and as of 2009, no minors had been returned to Morocco. With regard to the holding centres for accommodating unaccompanied foreign minors in the Canary Islands, in 2006 and 2008 under a transfer programme, 510 unaccompanied foreign minors in the Canary Islands had been sent to other areas in the peninsula.

Since the approval of the gender violence act, a number of measures had been taken to protect women. With specific reference to foreign women facing abuse, the delegation noted that 1,287 women from foreign countries had obtained permission to take up temporary residence on the basis of special circumstances, because they were victims of domestic violence, and the number of such women receiving temporary measures was increasing each year.

Concerning figures for gender violence in Spain, the Government agreed that those figures were unacceptable. However, right after the adoption of the law on gender violence in 2004, there had been a drop of 5 per cent in victims and, in 2009 that drop had been even greater. Another proof of the success of the law had been the increase in the number of complaints brought and prosecutions undertaken in this sphere.

Specifically on protection measures, the delegation said that the main reason for not granting protection measures was that the women themselves withdrew the complaints. To address that phenomenon (of withdrawing complaints), they had to find a way to provide more comprehensive support to women.

Spain did not record data on racial origin in Spain, in accordance with the provisions of its Constitution, the delegation said.

Spain had several times attempted to bring cases regarding torture or war crimes on the basis of universal jurisdiction, but most of those had not led to a result as it was found that the Spanish court was not the appropriate forum for one reason or another. However, Spanish legislation currently in force remained the most open and advanced in the world with regard to universal jurisdiction.

On the Law of Historic Memory, since 2006 more than 14 million euros had been spent on events related to historic memory, with 2 million euros set aside for exhumation of mass graves, the delegation said.

In 1995 the Spanish Government had abolished the death penalty, and the Government supported activities to encourage the abolition of the death penalty throughout the world.

Further Questions and Comments by Committee Experts

CLAUDIO GROSSMAN, the Committee Chairperson serving as Rapporteur for the report of Spain, welcomed the delegation's statement that the fight against terrorism could never justify torture or a lowering of human rights standards. He was also impressed that there had been 250 convictions in Spain for torture or ill-treatment within the reporting period. However, he would appreciate information on whether any of those cases had been brought on the basis of discrimination. Further, did the statute of limitations apply to torture cases in Spain?

Mr. Grossman remained concerned about the procedural shortcomings with regard to medical examinations in the incommunicado detention regime. Examinations appeared to be carried out at irregular times – early in the morning or late at night – and were only possible upon authorization by a judge. Moreover, most of those examinations did not take place within the eight-hour period stipulated. Basically, the ability of a detainee to choose his own doctor or lawyer was one good guarantee against torture. He also asked to know when the video monitoring equipment would be installed in 100 per cent of the Ministry of Security centres.

Mr. Grossman noted the view of Spain with regard to diplomatic guarantees, but he remained dissatisfied. He would like to hear what the criteria for assessing such situations were.

ABDOULAYE GAYE, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Spain, said that as information had been presented, it had been very hard to ascertain what the figures meant specifically, in particular with regard to the number of complaints, investigations and convictions for torture.

With regard to migrant holding centres in the Canary Islands, the problem of overcrowding was clearly being addressed, but Mr. Gaye said he would welcome some details on the impact of those measures on those still in the centres.

Concerning deaths in prison, Mr. Gaye noted as positive that the number had dropped. But he still had the same concern as yesterday: it appeared that, of the 678 violent deaths and suicides during the reporting period, apparently none of the investigations had led to sanctions or a conviction.

Other Committee Experts then asked questions on guarantees for independent investigations of complaints against police, currently carried out by other policemen; whether Spain had ever applied the Amnesty Law to perpetrators of torture; concern at the use of the term "prisoners" by the delegation today to refer to individuals in incommunicado detention, which again begged the question of presumption of innocence for such individuals; whether the video surveillance extended to the cells of incommunicado detainees; and reports that the Guardia Civil were particularly implicated in torture cases.

For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT09035E