SPAIN
Follow‑up ‑ Jurisprudence
Action by Treaty Bodies
CAT, A/60/44 (2005)
...
CHAPTER VI. CONSIDERATION OF COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 22 OF THE CONVENTION
...
D. Follow-up activities
150. At its twenty-eighth session, in May 2002, the Committee against Torture revised its rules of procedure and established the function of a Rapporteur for follow-up of decisions on complaints submitted under article 22.
151. The Rapporteur on follow-up submitted an oral report to the Committee at its thirty‑third session. The report contained information received since the thirty-second session from either the complainants or the States parties on the issue of follow-up to a number of decisions in which the Committee had found violations of the Convention. During the consideration of this report, the Committee requested the Special Rapporteur to provide information on follow-up to all decisions in which the Committee had found violations of the Convention, including decisions in which the Committee found violations, prior to the commencement of the Rapporteur=s mandate.
152. During the thirty-fourth session, the Special Rapporteur presented a report on follow-up to all the Committee=s decisions, including new information received from both the complainants and States parties since the thirty-third session. This report is provided below.
Report on follow-up to individual complaints to the1 Committee against Torture
Complaints in which the Committee has found violations of the Convention up to thirty-fourth session
|
Case |
Date of adoption |
Nationality of complainant and country of removal if applicable |
Article of Covenant violated |
Interim measures granted and State party=s response |
Remedy |
Follow-up |
Further action |
|
... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. 59/1996 Encarnación Blanco Abad v. Spain |
14 May 1998 |
Spanish |
12 and 13 |
None |
Relevant measures |
No information provided |
Request information |
|
... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. 212/2002 Urra Guridi v. Spain |
17 May 2005 |
not applicable |
2,4,and 14 |
None |
In pursuance of rule 112, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the Committee urges the State party to ensure in practice that those individuals responsible for acts of torture be appropriately punished, to ensure the complainant full redress and to inform the Committee, within 90 days from the date of the transmittal of this decision, of all steps taken in response to the Committee=s observations. |
90 days has not expired |
No action required |
1 The present report reflects information up to the end of the thirty-fourth session
CAT/C/SR.717 (2006)
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE
Thirty-sixth session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 717th MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Tuesday, 16 May 2006, at 10 a.m.
...
CONSIDERATION OF COMMUNICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 22 OF THE CONVENTION (agenda item 9) (continued)
50. The CHAIRPERSON invited the Special Rapporteur to introduce the report on follow-up activities (document without a symbol) relating to the Committee=s decisions on complaints submitted under article 22 of the Convention.
51. Mr. MARIÑO MENÉNDEZ, Special Rapporteur on Follow-up, summarized the comprehensive report on replies received with regard to all cases in which the Committee had found violations of the Convention and one case in which it had not found a violation but had made a recommendation.
52 It was proposed to send reminders requesting information or updates to the following States parties with regard to the specified communications: Austria (Halimi-Nedibi Quani, 8/1991); Canada (Tahir Hussain Khan, 15/1994; Falcon Ríos, 133/1999); France (Brada, 195/2003); Netherlands (A, 91/1997); Serbia and Montenegro (Ristic, 113/1998; Hajrizi Dzemajl et al., 161/2000; Nikolic, 174/2000; Dimitrijevic, Dragan, 207/2002); Spain (Ecarnación Blanco Abad, 59/1996; Urra Guridi, 212/2002); Sweden (Tharina, 226/2003; Agiza, 233/2003); Venezuela (Chipana, 110/1998).
...
CAT, A/61/44 (2006)
...
CHAPTER VI. CONSIDERATION OF COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 22 OF THE CONVENTION
...
D. Follow‑up activities
75. At its twenty‑eighth session, in May 2002, the Committee against Torture revised its rules of procedure and established the function of a Rapporteur for follow‑up of decisions on complaints submitted under article 22. At its 527th meeting, on 16 May 2002, the Committee decided that the Rapporteur shall engage, inter alia, in the following activities: monitoring compliance with the Committee=s decisions by sending notes verbales to States parties enquiring about measures adopted pursuant to the Committee=s decisions; recommending to the Committee appropriate action upon the receipt of responses from States parties, in situations of non‑response, and upon the receipt henceforth of all letters from complainants concerning non‑implementation of the Committee=s decisions; meeting with representatives of the permanent missions of States parties to encourage compliance and to determine whether advisory services or technical assistance by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights would be appropriate or desirable; conducting with the approval of the Committee follow‑up visits to States parties; preparing periodic reports to the Committee on his/her activities.
76. During its thirty‑fourth session, the Committee, through its Special Rapporteur on follow‑up to decisions, decided that in cases in which it had found violations of the Convention, including Decisions made by the Committee prior to the establishment of the follow‑up procedure, the States parties should be requested to provide information on all measures taken by them to implement the Committee=s Decisions.
77. In a follow‑up report presented to the Committee during the thirty‑fifth session, the Special Rapporteur on follow‑up to decisions provided information received from four States parties pursuant to this request: France; Serbia and Montenegro (in relation to 113/1998, Ristic); Switzerland; and Sweden. The following countries did not respond to the request: Austria; Canada (with respect to Tahir Hussain Khan, 15/1994); the Netherlands; Spain; and Serbia and Montenegro (in relation to 161/2000, Hajrizi Dzemajl, 171/2000, Dimitrov, and 207/2002, Dragan Dimitrijevic).
...
79. During the thirty‑sixth session, the Special Rapporteur on follow‑up to decisions presented new follow‑up information that had been received since the thirty‑fifth session with respect to the following cases: Dadar v. Canada (258/2004), Thabti v. Tunisia (187/2001), Abdelli v. Tunisia (188/2001) and Ltaief v. Tunisia (189/2001) and Chipana v. Venezuela (110/1998). Represented below is a comprehensive report of replies received with regard to all cases in which the Committee has found violations of the Convention to date and in one case in which it did not find a violation but made a recommendation. Where there is no field entitled ACommittee=s decision@ at the end of the provision of information in a particular case, the follow‑up to the case in question is ongoing and further information has or will be requested of the complainant or the State party.
Complaints in which the Committee has found violations of the Convention up to the thirty‑fourth session
...
|
State party
|
SPAIN |
|
Case
|
Encarnación Blanco Abad, 59/1996 |
|
Nationality and country of removal if applicable
|
Spanish |
|
Views adopted on
|
14 May 1998 |
|
Issues and violations found
|
Failure to investigate ‑ articles 12 and 13 |
|
Interim measures granted and State party response
|
None |
|
Remedy recommended
|
Relevant measures |
|
Due date for State party response
|
None |
|
Date of reply
|
None |
|
State party response
|
No information provided |
|
Author=s response
|
N/A |
|
Case
|
Urra Guridi, 212/2002 |
|
Nationality and country of removal if applicable
|
Spanish |
|
Views adopted on
|
17 May 2005 |
|
Issues and violations found |
Failure to prevent and punish torture, and provide a remedy ‑ articles 2, 4 and 14
|
|
Interim measures granted and State party response
|
None |
|
Remedy recommended |
Urges the State party to ensure in practice that those individuals responsible of acts of torture be appropriately punished, to ensure the author full redress. |
|
Due date for State party response
|
18 August 2005 |
|
Date of reply
|
None |
|
State party response
|
No information provided |
|
Author=s response
|
N/A |
...
CAT, A/62/44 (2007)
...
VI. CONSIDERATION OF COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 22 OF THE CONVENTION
...
Complaints in which the Committee has found violations of the Convention up to the thirty-eighth session
|
... |
|
|
State party |
SPAIN |
|
Case |
Encarnación Blanco Abad, 59/1996. |
|
Nationality and country of removal if applicable |
Spanish |
|
Views adopted on |
14 May 1998 |
|
Issues and violations found |
Failure to investigate ‑ articles 12 and 13 |
|
Interim measures granted and State party response |
None |
|
Remedy recommended |
Relevant measures |
|
Due date for State party response |
None |
|
Date of reply |
None |
|
State party response |
No information provided |
|
Complainant=s response |
N/A |
|
Case |
Urra Guridi, 212/2002 |
|
Nationality and country of removal if applicable |
Spanish |
|
Views adopted on |
17 May 2005 |
|
Issues and violations found |
Failure to prevent and punish torture, and provide a remedy ‑ articles 2, 4 and 14. |
|
Interim measures granted and State party response |
None |
|
Remedy recommended |
Urges the State party to ensure in practice that those individuals responsible of acts of torture be appropriately punished, to ensure the Complainant full redress. |
|
Due date for State party response |
18 August 2005 |
|
Date of reply |
None |
|
State party response |
No information provided |
|
Complainant=s response |
N/A |
...
CAT, A/63/44 (2008)
...
CHAPTER VI. CONSIDERATION OF COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 22 OF THE CONVENTION
...
D. Follow up activities
93. At its twenty‑eighth session, in May 2002, the Committee against Torture revised its rules of procedure and established the function of a Rapporteur for follow‑up of decisions on complaints submitted under article 22. At its 527th meeting, on 16 May 2002, the Committee decided that the Rapporteur shall engage, inter alia, in the following activities: monitoring compliance with the Committee=s decisions by sending notes verbales to States parties enquiring about measures adopted pursuant to the Committee=s decisions; recommending to the Committee appropriate action upon the receipt of responses from States parties, in situations of non response, and upon the receipt henceforth of all letters from complainants concerning non implementation of the Committee=s decisions; meeting with representatives of the permanent missions of States parties to encourage compliance and to determine whether advisory services or technical assistance by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights would be appropriate or desirable; conducting with the approval of the Committee follow up visits to States parties; preparing periodic reports for the Committee on his/her activities.
94. During its thirty fourth session, the Committee, through its Special Rapporteur on follow up to decisions, decided that in cases in which it had found violations of the Convention, including Decisions made by the Committee prior to the establishment of the follow up procedure, the States parties should be requested to provide information on all measures taken by them to implement the Committee=s recommendations made in the Decisions. To date, the following countries have not yet responded to these requests:... Spain (Encarnación Blanco Abad, No. 59/1996, and Urra Guridi, No. 212/2002); ...
...
99. Represented below is a comprehensive report of replies received with regard to all 45 cases in which the Committee has found violations of the Convention to date and in one case in which although the Committee did not find a violation of the Convention it did make a recommendation.
Complaints in which the Committee has found violations of the
Convention up to the fortieth session
...
|
State party |
SPAIN
|
|
Case |
Encarnación Blanco Abad, 59/1996.
|
|
Nationality and country of removal if applicable |
Spanish
|
|
Views adopted on |
14 May 1998
|
|
Issues and violations found |
Failure to investigate - articles 12 and 13
|
|
Interim measures granted and State party response |
None
|
|
Remedy recommended |
Relevant measures
|
|
Due date for State party response |
None
|
|
Date of reply |
None
|
|
State party response |
No information provided
|
|
Complainant=s response |
N/A
|
|
Case |
Urra Guridi, 212/2002
|
|
Nationality and country of removal if applicable |
Spanish
|
|
Views adopted on |
17 May 2005
|
|
Issues and violations found |
Failure to prevent and punish torture, and provide a remedy - articles 2, 4 and 14
|
|
Interim measures granted and State party response |
None
|
|
Remedy recommended |
Urges the State party to ensure in practice that those individuals responsible of acts of torture be appropriately punished, to ensure the complainant full redress.
|
|
Due date for State party response |
18 August 2005
|
|
Date of reply |
None
|
|
State party response |
No information provided
|
|
Complainant=s response |
N/A
|
|
... |
|
CAT, CAT/C/SR.855 (2008)
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE
Forty‑first session
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE FIRST PART (PUBLIC)* OF THE 855th MEETING
Held at the Palais Wilson, Geneva,
on Friday, 14 November 2008, at 3 p.m.
...
CONSIDERATION OF COMMUNICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 22 OF THE CONVENTION (continued)
Follow‑up progress report of the Committee against Torture on individual communications (CAT/C/41/R.1)
1. The CHAIRPERSON invited the Special Rapporteur to introduce the follow‑up progress report (CAT/C/41/R.1) relating to the Committee's decisions on complaints submitted under article 22 of the Convention.
2. Mr. MARIÑO MENÉNDEZ (Special Rapporteur on Follow‑up), introducing the report, said that it contained follow‑up information submitted since the Committee's fortieth session. No information had been received from: Canada concerning communication No. 15/1994; Spain concerning communications No. 59/1996 and No. 212/2002; Serbia and Montenegro concerning communications Nos. 171/2000, 172/2000 and 207/2002; or Tunisia concerning communication No. 269/2005. Both Serbia and Montenegro had rejected responsibility for the above‑mentioned cases, as well as for the case of Milan Ristic (communication No. 113/1998), which had not been referred to in the report. He proposed that reminders requesting follow‑up information should be sent to all those States parties. In the absence of a response from Serbia and Montenegro, a meeting should be convened between State party representatives and himself to clarify legal responsibility for the cases.
3. The CHAIRPERSON said that, if there was no objection, he would take it that the Committee agreed to the course of action proposed by the Special Rapporteur.
4. It was so decided.
...
The public part of the meeting rose at 4.35 p.m.
__________________
*/ The summary record of the second part (closed) of the meeting appears as document CAT/C/SR. 855/Add.1.
CAT, A/64/44 (2009)
VI. CONSIDERATION OF COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 22 OF THE CONVENTION
...
D. Follow‑up activities
89. At its twenty‑eighth session, in May 2002, the Committee against Torture revised its rules of procedure and established the function of a Rapporteur for follow‑up of decisions on complaints submitted under article 22. At its 527th meeting, on 16 May 2002, the Committee decided that the Rapporteur shall engage, inter alia, in the following activities: monitoring compliance with the Committee's decisions by sending notes verbales to States parties enquiring about measures adopted pursuant to the Committee's decisions; recommending to the Committee appropriate action upon the receipt of responses from States parties, in situations of non response, and upon the receipt henceforth of all letters from complainants concerning non implementation of the Committee's decisions; meeting with representatives of the permanent missions of States parties to encourage compliance and to determine whether advisory services or technical assistance by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights would be appropriate or desirable; conducting with the approval of the Committee follow up visits to States parties; preparing periodic reports for the Committee on his/her activities.
90. During its thirty fourth session, the Committee, through its Special Rapporteur on follow up to decisions, decided that in cases in which it had found violations of the Convention, including decisions made by the Committee prior to the establishment of the follow up procedure, the States parties should be requested to provide information on all measures taken by them to implement the Committee's recommendations made in the decisions. ...
...
93. In the following cases, either further information is awaited from the States parties or the complainants and/or the dialogue with the State party is ongoing: ... Encarnación Blanco Abad v. Spain (No. 59/1996); Urra Guridi v. Spain (No. 212/2002); ...
94. During the forty‑first and forty‑second sessions, the Special Rapporteur on follow up to decisions presented new follow up information that had been received since the last annual report with respect to the following cases: ... Encarnación Blanco Abad v. Spain (No. 59/1996); Urra Guridi v. Spain (No. 212/2002); ...
95. Represented below is a comprehensive report of replies received with regard to all 48 cases in which the Committee has found violations of the Convention to date and in 1 case in which although the Committee did not find a violation of the Convention it did make a recommendation.
Complaints in which the Committee has found violations of the Convention up to the forty‑second session
|
... |
|
|
State party |
SPAIN |
|
Case |
Encarnación Blanco Abad, 59/1996. |
|
Nationality and country of removal if applicable |
Spanish |
|
Views adopted on |
14 May 1998 |
|
Issues and violations found |
Failure to investigate - articles 12 and 13 |
|
Interim measures granted and State party response |
None |
|
Remedy recommended |
Relevant measures |
|
Due date for State party response |
None |
|
Date of reply |
23 January 2008 |
|
State party response |
The State party indicated that it had already forwarded information in relation to the follow‑up to this case in September 1998. |
|
Complainant=s response |
N/A |
|
Committee=s decision |
The follow-up dialogue is ongoing. |
|
Case |
Urra Guridi, 212/2002 |
|
Nationality and country of removal if applicable |
Spanish |
|
Views adopted on |
17 May 2005 |
|
Issues and violations found |
Failure to prevent and punish torture, and provide a remedy - articles 2, 4 and 14 |
|
Interim measures granted and State party response |
None |
|
Remedy recommended |
Urges the State party to ensure in practice that those individuals responsible of acts of torture be appropriately punished, to ensure the complainant full redress. |
|
Due date for State party response |
18 August 2005 |
|
Date of reply |
23 January 2008 |
|
State party response |
According to the State party, this case relates to a case in which officers of the Spanish security forces were condemned for the crime of torture, and later partially pardoned by the Government. The judgement is non-appealable. Civil liability was determined and the complainant was awarded compensation according to the damage suffered. As part of the measures to implement the decision, the State party disseminated it to different authorities, including the President of the Supreme Court, President of the Judiciary Council and President of the Constitutional Court. |
|
Complainant=s response |
N/A |
|
Committee=s decision |
The follow-up dialogue is ongoing. |
|
... |
|
CAT, A/65/44 (2010)
...
CHAPTER VI. CONSIDERATION OF COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 22 OF THE CONVENTION
...
D. Follow‑up activities
108. At its twenty-eighth session, in May 2002, the Committee against Torture revised its rules of procedure and established the function of a Rapporteur for follow-up of decisions on complaints submitted under article 22. At its 527th meeting, on 16 May 2002, the Committee decided that the Rapporteur shall engage, inter alia, in the following activities: monitoring compliance with the Committee=s decisions by sending notes verbales to States parties enquiring about measures adopted pursuant to the Committee=s decisions; recommending to the Committee appropriate action upon the receipt of responses from States parties, in situations of non‑response, and upon the receipt henceforth of all letters from complainants concerning non‑implementation of the Committee=s decisions; meeting with representatives of the permanent missions of States parties to encourage compliance and to determine whether advisory services or technical assistance by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights would be appropriate or desirable; conducting with the approval of the Committee follow-up visits to States parties; preparing periodic reports for the Committee on his/her activities.
109. During its thirty-fourth session, the Committee, through its Rapporteur for follow-up of decisions on complaints, decided that in cases in which it had found violations of the Convention, including decisions made by the Committee prior to the establishment of the follow-up procedure, the States parties should be requested to provide information on all measures taken by them to implement the Committee=s recommendations made in the decisions. To date, the following countries have not yet responded to these requests: Canada (with respect to Tahir Hussain Khan, No. 15/1994); Serbia1 and Montenegro (with respect to Dimitrov, No. 171/2000,2 Danil Dimitrijevic, No. 172/2000, Nikoliƒ, Slobodan and Ljiljana, No. 174/2000, Dragan Dimitrijevic, No. 207/2002 and Besim Osmani v. Republic of Serbia, No. 261/2005); and Tunisia (with respect to Ali Ben Salem, No. 269/2005).
110. Action taken by the States parties in the following cases complied fully with the Committee=s decisions and no further action will be taken under the follow-up procedure: Halimi‑Nedibi Quani v. Austria (No. 8/1991); M.A.K. v. Germany (No. 214/2002);3 Hajrizi Dzemajl et al. v. Serbia and Montenegro (No. 161/2000), the Netherlands (with respect to A.J., No. 91/1997); Mutombo v. Switzerland (No. 13/1993); Alan v. Switzerland (No. 21/1995); Aemei v. Switzerland (No. 34/1995); V.L. v. Switzerland (No. 262/2005); El Rgeig v. Switzerland (No. 280/2005); Tapia Paez v. Sweden (No. 39/1996); Kisoki v. Sweden (No. 41/1996); Tala v. Sweden (No. 43/1996); Avedes Hamayak Korban v. Sweden (No. 88/1997); Ali Falakaflaki v. Sweden (No. 89/1997); Orhan Ayas v. Sweden (No. 97/1997); Halil Haydin v. Sweden (No. 101/1997); A.S. v. Sweden (No. 149/1999); Chedli Ben Ahmed Karoui v. Sweden (No. 185/2001); Dar v. Norway4 (No. 249/2004); Tharina v. Sweden (No. 266/2003); C.T. and K.M. v. Sweden (No. 279/2005); and Jean-Patrick Iya v. Switzerland (No. 299/2006).
111. In the following cases, the Committee considered that for various reasons no further action should be taken under the follow-up procedure: Elmi v. Australia (No. 120/1998); Arana v. France (No. 63/1997); and Ltaief v. Tunisia (No. 189/2001). In one case, the Committee deplored the State party=s failure to abide by its obligations under article 3 having deported the complainant, despite the Committee=s finding that there were substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being tortured: Dadar v. Canada (No. 258/2004). In one case, given the author=s voluntary return to his country of origin, the Committee decided not to consider the case any further under the follow-up procedure: Falcon Rios v. Canada (No. 133/1999).
112. In the following cases, either further information is awaited from the States parties or the complainants and/or the dialogue with the State party is ongoing: Dadar v. Canada (No. 258/2004); Brada v. France (No. 195/2003); Guengueng et al. v. Senegal (No. 181/2001); Ristic v. Serbia and Montenegro (No. 113/1998); Blanco Abad v. Spain (No. 59/1996); Urra Guridi v. Spain (No. 212/2002); Agiza v. Sweden (No. 233/2003); Thabti v. Tunisia (No. 187/2001); Abdelli v. Tunisia (No. 188/2001); M=Barek v. Tunisia (No. 60/1996); Saadia Ali v. Tunisia (No. 291/2006); Chipana v. Venezuela (No. 110/1998); Pelit v. Azerbaijan (No. 281/2005); Bachan Singh Sogi v. Canada (No. 297/2006); Tebourski v. France (No. 300/2006); and Besim Osmani v. Republic of Serbia (No. 261/2005).
113. During the forty-third and forty-fourth sessions, the Rapporteur for follow-up of decisions on complaints presented new follow-up information that had been received since the last annual report with respect to the following cases: Guengueng et al. v. Senegal (No. 181/2001); Agiza v. Sweden (No. 233/2003); Bachan Singh Sogi v. Canada (No. 297/2006); Falcon Rios v. Canada (No. 133/1999); Blanco Abad v. Spain (No. 59/1996); Urra Guridi v. Spain (No. 212/2002); M=Barek v. Tunisia (No. 60/1996); Saadia Ali v. Tunisia (No. 291/2006).
114. Represented below is a comprehensive report of replies received with regard to all 49 cases in which the Committee has found violations of the Convention to date and in 1 case in which although the Committee did not find a violation of the Convention it did make a recommendation.
________
1 On 11 June 2008, following requests by the Committee to Serbia and Montenegro to confirm which State would be following up on Decisions adopted by the Committee and registered against the State party ASerbia and Montenegro@, the Secretariat received a response from Montenegro only which stated that all the cases were within the remit of the Republic of Serbia.
2 In December 2009, the Secretariat learned verbally from the State party that this case had been subsequently reopened but nothing has been received in writing to this effect.
3 Although no violation was found in this case, the Committee welcomed the State party=s readiness to monitor the complainant=s situation and subsequently provided satisfactory information in this regard (see chart below).
4 The State had already remedied the breach prior to consideration of the case.
Complaints in which the Committee has found violations of the Convention up to the forty-fourth session
...
|
State party |
Spain |
|
Case |
Blanco Abad, 59/1996 |
|
Nationality and country of removal if applicable |
Spanish |
|
Views adopted on |
14 May 1998 |
|
Issues and violations found |
Failure to investigate - articles 12 and 13 |
|
Interim measures granted and State party response |
None |
|
Remedy recommended |
Relevant measures |
|
Due date for State party response |
None |
|
Date of reply |
Latest reply on 25 May 2009 (had previously responded on 23 January 2008).
|
|
State party response |
On 23 January 2008, the State party indicated that it had already forwarded information in relation to the follow-up to this case in September 1998. On 25 May 2009, the State party stated that following the Committee=s Decision the prison administration must always send information relating to the medical condition of detainees immediately to court, so that judges may immediately act upon it. This was to satisfy the Committee=s concern in paragraph 8.4 of the Decision that the judge waited too long in this case to act upon medical evidence that the complainant had been ill-treated. The Decision was sent to all judges for information, as well as the office of the prosecutor which drafted guidelines for all prosecutors to the effect that all claims of torture should merit a reply by the judiciary. The guidelines themselves were not included.
|
|
Complainant=s comments |
None |
|
Committee=s decision |
The follow-up dialogue is ongoing. |
|
|
|
|
Case |
Urra Guridi, 212/2002 |
|
Nationality and country of removal if applicable |
Spanish |
|
Views adopted on |
17 May 2005 |
|
Issues and violations found |
Failure to prevent and punish torture, and provide a remedy B articles 2, 4 and 14
|
|
Interim measures granted and State party response |
None |
|
Remedy recommended |
Urges the State party to ensure in practice that those individuals responsible of acts of torture be appropriately punished, to ensure the complainant full redress.
|
|
Due date for State party response |
18 August 2005 |
|
Date of reply |
23 January 2008 |
|
State party response |
According to the State party, this case relates to a case in which officers of the Spanish security forces were condemned for the crime of torture, and later partially pardoned by the Government. The judgement is non-appealable. Civil liability was determined and the complainant was awarded compensation according to the damage suffered. As part of the measures to implement the decision, the State party disseminated it to different authorities, including the President of the Supreme Court, President of the Judiciary Council and President of the Constitutional Court.
|
|
Complainant=s comments |
On 4 June 2009, the complainant reiterates the argument made in the complaint that the pardoning of torturers leads to impunity and favours the repetition of torture. He provides general information on the continual failure of the State party to investigate claims of torture and the fact that torturers are rarely prosecuted. In fact, in the complainant=s view such individuals are often rewarded in their careers and some are promoted to working on the struggle against terrorism, including one of those convicted of having tortured the complainant. Manuel Sánchez Corbi (one of the individuals convicted of having tortured the complainant) received the grade of commandant and became responsible for the coordination of anti-terrorism with France. José María de las Cuevas was integrated into the work of the Civil Guard and named representative of the judicial police. He has represented the government in many international forums, including receiving the delegation from the European Committee on the Prevention of Torture of the Council of Europe in 2001, despite the fact that he had been convicted himself of having tortured the complainant.
|
|
Committee=s decision |
The follow-up dialogue is ongoing. |
|
... |
|
|
|
|
Home | About Bayefsky.com | Text of the Treaties | Amendments to the Treaties
Documents by State | Documents by Category | Documents by Theme or Subject Matter
How to Complain About Human Rights Treaty Violations | Working Methods of the Treaty Bodies | Report: Universality at the Crossroads