’WPCM Ŗ¹C"Ó)“Ņė$’Ņś$_ŚĖģ•Å-.ÅkjČøļM m{łńé#Ž9VF°ŖĒ‘×®~Ŷջ‘ļ.Ł1­Ėd” D“²ĢŖŒ×Ś7‚ļ[ 0“ )1©ż©#GXš›E~g Ģ§wDU4a“.Ķ2gN}Ąœ‹3žę__\—„łÜXÄ÷Ķ»“Šś˜ ?g1„Ć\Ė_CĢ×O*c2ā‰oUž2Tüp”“Ÿ<ō¼BRį„Ģ™žÆĒŲ÷`p‹Y]ć²ßņgO96Š'ģŅLiw Ņ•@“¢ŽZķ\Ÿ" Ķ©dząo+¤ön–9··½ŃB öņ¶ą,Ģ~żXē`õūĮ½ø/ÆŌsDø•·X\›2#ŸZB -z§Ž zš1^żŌyēŲ2†•yB9Mē([×ÜtDj²sXiž^ŽUŗ¼1‡(‡>I;¬|ē8ż-Ž ÄĄP‚¹©Øõ«Aõ‹IŲā9A5Ū„żd]¾ł“1ęµ8ųĄdĻ_<ķ]:¼Ć$.Ł¬=Ę¼Ą%‹Ķ£Ąō)  Ä^‘’›R”¾SīKU{)³¬—QoFŽØMĬs/ŻOg_÷tgįP»AėÄŅžįž·Z.m¬ųkö #ÉØUNq %æ 0:Å^ ’w 4#2 m4NK˜\\YORK_UNIVERSITY\q_hrts_hp4000tnŅV,,,,ŅV0(ÖĆ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ö\$””ŌCEUS.,Ōɳg/— £f/U AMō›§3|x ’U‹’ĄĄĄŻ ƒö\!ŻŌCEUS.,ŌŻ  ŻŌ_Ōņ ņHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEŠ ° ŠĢņņRuiz€Ō_ŌAgudoŌ_Ō€Ō_Ōv.Ō_Ō€SpainóóŠ „Ō ŠĢCommunication€No€864/1999Š XØ ŠĢ31€October€2002Š , | ŠĢŌ_ŌCCPRŌ_Ō/C/76/D/864/1999Š  P ŠĢĢVIEWSó óŠ ¾  ŠĢĢņņņņSubmitted€byóó:€Mr.€Alfonso€Ruiz€Ō_ŌAgudoŌ_Ō€(represented€by€Mr.€Jos€Luis€Ō_ŌMazš;šnŌ_Ō€Costa)Š zŹ  Š€ĢņņAlleged€victimóó:€The€authorŠ H˜ Š€ĢņņState€partyóó:€Spain€Š f ŠĢņņDate€of€decision€on€admissibilityóó:€15€March€2001€óóŠ ä4 ŠĢĢņņÓ  ÓThe€Human€Rights€Committeeóó,€established€under€article€28€of€the€International€Covenant€on€CivilŠ ķ Šand€Political€Rights,€Š †Ö ŠĢņņMeeting€onóó€31€October€2002,€Š XØ ŠĢņņHaving€concludedóó€its€consideration€of€communication€No.€864/1999€submitted€by€Mr.€Alfonso€RuizŠ *z ŠŌ_ŌAgudoŌ_Ō€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€Š c ŠĢņņHaving€taken€into€accountóó€all€written€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€author€of€theŠ å 5 Šcommunication€and€the€State€party,€Š Ī!  ŠĢņņAdopts€the€followingóó:€Š  #š" ŠĢĢÓÓņ ņÓ  ÓViews€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Optional€Protocoló óŠ [&«!% ŠÓļÓÓÓĢĢ1.€€The€author€of€the€communication€is€Alfonso€Ruiz€Ō_ŌAgudoŌ_Ō,€a€Spanish€citizen.€In€hisŠ )g$( Šcommunication€of€12€March€1998,€he€claims€that€he€was€the€victim€of€a€violation€by€Spain€of€articleŠ *P%) Š14€of€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights.€In€his€communication€dated€27Š é*9&* ŠAugust€1999,€he€also€maintains€that€he€was€the€victim€of€a€violation€of€article€7€and€article€10,Š Ņ+"'+ Šparagraph€3,€of€the€Covenant.€The€author€is€represented€by€counsel.€Š », (, ŠŠ ¤-ō(- ŠŌ_Ōņ ņThe€facts€as€submitted€by€the€authoró ó€1/Š ° ŠĢ2.1€€From€1971€to€1983,€Alfonso€Ruiz€Agudo€held€the€post€of€Director€of€the€Caja€Rural€ProvincialŠ …Õ Šin€the€small€town€of€Cehegn€(Murcia),€where€he€was€responsible€for€customer€relations.€In€theŠ n¾ Šperiod€from€1981€to€1983,€75€fictitious€loan€policies,€which€duplicated€an€equal€number€of€realŠ W§ Šloans,€were€transacted€in€the€office€of€the€Cehegn€bank.€In€other€words,€there€were€bank€customersŠ @  Šwho€signed€blank€loan€forms€that€were€later€completed€in€duplicate.€Š ) y ŠĢ2.2€€The€Caja€Rural€Provincial€was€taken€over€by€the€Caja€de€Ahorros€de€Murcia,€and€both€banksŠ ū K Šappeared€in€the€criminal€proceedings€opened€against€Alfonso€Ruiz€Agudo€and€others€as€privateŠ ä 4  Šcomplainant€or€injured€party.€Alfonso€Ruiz€Agudo's€counsel€immediately€asked€for€the€original€filesŠ Ķ   Šof€the€accounts,€which€the€author€kept€at€the€Cehegn€bank€and€where,€according€to€the€complainant,Š ¶  Šthe€money€from€the€fictitious€loans€was€deposited,€to€be€produced€at€the€proceedings.€According€toŠ Ÿļ  Šthe€author€of€the€communication,€these€files€would€have€shown€that€the€money€went€not€to€AlfonsoŠ ˆŲ  ŠRuiz€Agudo€but€to€other€persons.€The€bank€submitted€a€computerized€version€of€the€files.€Š qĮ  ŠĢ2.3€€Counsel€maintains€that,€although€proceedings€were€initiated€against€his€client€in€1983,€noŠ C“ Šjudgement€was€handed€down€until€1994.€The€judgement€was€eventually€passed€by€the€judge€of€theŠ ,| ŠNo.€1€Criminal€Court€of€Murcia,€sentencing€the€author€to€a€custodial€penalty€of€two€years,€fourŠ e Šmonths€and€one€day€of€ordinary€imprisonment€with€a€fine€for€an€offence€of€fraud,€and€to€a€furtherŠ žN Šidentical€penalty€for€the€offence€of€falsifying€a€commercial€document.€Š ē7 ŠĢ2.4€€The€author€submitted€an€appeal€against€the€sentence,€on€the€grounds€that€there€had€been€aŠ ¹  Šserious€error€in€the€assessment€of€the€evidence€and€that€he€had€been€convicted€for€acts€that€had€inŠ ¢ņ Šfact€been€committed€by€another€person.€He€also€complained€that€uncertified€evidence€(in€the€formŠ ‹Ū Šof€a€computerized€version€of€his€accounts)€had€been€used€against€him.€Š tÄ ŠĢ2.5€€A€ruling€was€issued€on€his€appeal€by€the€Third€Division€of€the€Court€of€Murcia€in€a€judgementŠ F– Šon€7€May€1996.€According€to€counsel,€this€ruling€contains€arguments€that€are€incompatible€with€theŠ / Šright€to€presumption€of€innocence,€which€implies€that€the€burden€of€proof€must€always€rest€with€theŠ h Šaccusing€party,€when€it€states€that:€Š  Q ŠĢą0  ą"(š8šš8š)€it€has€been€found€that€the€accused,€Mr.€Alfonso€Ruiz€Agudo,€channelled€theŠ Ó!#  Šdefrauded€sums€through€his€own€account€and€others€to€which€he€had€access,€even€though€theŠ ¼" ! Šfinding€was€based€on€computer€data€produced€by€the€employees€of€the€said€Caja€de€Ahorros,Š „#õ" Ša€procedure€that€the€defence€experts€themselves€considered€to€be€normal,€while€there€is€noŠ Ž$Ž# Šdoubt€that€it€would€have€been€preferable€to€have€the€originals€of€the€accounting€transactionsŠ w%Ē $ Šconcerned.€On€the€other€hand,€data€or€facts€to€challenge€the€reliability€of€the€computer€filesŠ `&°!% Šshould€have€been€produced."€ŠI'™"&(#(# ŠĢ2.6€€According€to€counsel,€the€last€sentence€of€this€paragraph€shows€that€the€Appeals€Court€adoptedŠ )k$( Šan€attitude€that€is€incompatible€with€the€right€to€presumption€of€innocence,€since€it€is€assuming€thatŠ *T%) Šthe€accused€is€guilty€as€long€as€he€does€not€prove€his€innocence,€and€since€completely€uncertifiedŠ ķ*=&* Ševidence€is€considered€sufficient€to€deprive€his€client€of€his€right€to€be€presumed€innocent€and€toŠ Ö+&'+ Šrequire€prosecution€evidence€to€offer€guarantees€of€reliability.€Š æ,(, ŠŠ Ø-ų(- Š2.7€€A€preventive€ņņamparoóó€application€was€brought€before€the€Constitutional€Court€against€the€rulingŠ ° Šof€the€Provincial€High€Court€of€Murcia€and€was€subsequently€rejected€by€a€decision€of€18€SeptemberŠ ™é Š1996.€According€to€counsel,€all€domestic€remedies€were€thereby€exhausted.€Š ‚Ņ ŠĢ2.8€€The€author's€counsel€maintains€that€the€defendant€was€the€victim€of€a€frame-up€by€the€CajaŠ T¤ ŠRural,€subsequently€taken€over€by€the€Caja€de€Ahorros€de€Murcia,€in€order€to€blame€him€for€illegalŠ =  Šacts€that€he€had€not€committed,€proof€of€which€he€had€tried€to€demonstrate€on€the€basis€of€hisŠ & v Šoriginal€bank€files.€Moreover,€according€to€the€author,€the€Caja€de€Ahorros€submitted€a€falsifiedŠ  _ Šdocument€blaming€Alfonso€Ruiz€Agudo€for€having€arranged€a€loan€for€a€sum€of€90€million€pesetas,Š ų H Šwhich€he€had€not€requested,€using€for€the€purpose€a€blank€form€that€he€had€signed.€Š į 1  ŠĢ2.9€€In€a€second€communication,€dated€27€August€1999,€the€author's€counsel€reported€that€the€No.Š ³  Š1€Criminal€Court€of€Murcia,€in€an€order€dated€25€September€1998,€had€informed€the€author€that€theŠ œģ  ŠCouncil€of€Ministers€had€rejected€his€application€for€pardon€and€that€he€had€to€go€to€prison.€ThatŠ …Õ  Šdecision€was€appealed€before€the€judge€and€subsequently€before€the€Provincial€High€Court€on€theŠ n¾  Šgrounds€that€the€penalty€imposed,€considering€the€enormous€interval€of€16€years€that€had€passedŠ W§  Šsince€the€beginning€of€the€proceedings,€violated€the€right€not€to€be€subjected€to€cruel€or€degradingŠ @ Špunishment€and€for€the€penalty€to€serve€a€rehabilitating€purpose.€The€Criminal€Court€and€the€HighŠ )y ŠCourt€both€rejected€the€author's€claims.€Š b ŠĢ2.10€€The€author€brought€another€ņņamparoóó€application€before€the€Constitutional€Court€on€21€OctoberŠ ä4 Š1998,€after€being€informed€of€the€decision€by€the€judge€of€the€Criminal€Court€ordering€his€entry€intoŠ Ķ Šprison.€On€19€December€1998,€the€author€requested€the€Constitutional€Court€in€writing€to€suspendŠ ¶ Šconsideration€of€his€ņņamparoóó€application,€as€his€appeals€were€being€considered€by€the€Criminal€CourtŠ Ÿļ Šand€the€Provincial€High€Court.€The€Constitutional€Court€did€not€reply.€In€a€request€lodged€on€17Š ˆŲ ŠFebruary€1999,€the€author€applied€for€an€extension€of€the€ņņamparoóó€application€after€his€appeals€beforeŠ qĮ Šthe€Criminal€Court€and€the€High€Court€had€been€rejected.€Eight€days€later,€he€was€notified€of€theŠ ZŖ Šdecision€of€the€Constitutional€Court€rejecting€his€ņņamparoóó€appeal.€Š C“ ŠĢ2.11€€Two€months€after€he€had€been€admitted€to€prison,€the€prison€authorities€placed€Alfonso€RuizŠ e ŠAgudo€in€open€detention,€which€meant€that€he€had€to€sleep€at€the€prison€during€the€week€and€thatŠ žN Šhis€movements€were€restricted€whenever€he€left€the€prison.€Š ē 7 ŠĢņ ņThe€complaint€ó óŠ ¹" ! ŠĢ3.1€€The€author€claims€that€there€was€a€violation€by€Spain€of€article€14,€paragraph€1,€of€the€CovenantŠ Œ$Ü# Šon€the€grounds€that€both€the€Criminal€Court€and€the€High€Court€had€allowed€a€custodial€sentenceŠ u%Å $ Što€rest€on€documentary€evidence€arbitrarily€produced€by€the€prosecutor;€and€that€the€argumentsŠ ^&®!% Šcontained€in€the€legal€explanation€of€the€judgement€handed€down€by€the€Provincial€High€CourtŠ G'—"& Šagainst€the€accused€were€incompatible€with€the€principle€that€the€burden€of€proof€rested€with€theŠ 0(€#' Šaccusing€party,€the€very€principle€underlying€the€right€to€presumption€of€innocence.€Š )i$( ŠĢ3.2€€The€author€also€maintains€that€article€14,€paragraph€3,€of€the€Covenant€was€violated,€since€theŠ ė*;&* Šcriminal€proceedings€had€lasted€more€than€15€years.€Š Ō+$'+ ŠĢ3.3€€He€also€points€out€that€there€was€no€verbatim€record€of€the€statements€of€witnesses,€experts,Š ¦-ö(- Šparties€and€counsel€but€only€a€summary€drawn€up€by€the€clerk€of€the€court,€so€that€the€proceedings,Š ° Šaccording€to€the€author,€lacked€essential€guarantees.€Moreover,€the€accusing€parties€were€at€a€clearŠ ™é Šadvantage€in€the€proceedings.€He€mentions€article€790,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Criminal€Procedure€Act,Š ‚Ņ Šmaintaining€that€the€rules€of€summary€proceedings€infringe€the€basic€principle€of€equality€of€armsŠ k» Šin€judicial€proceedings.€Š T¤ ŠĢ3.4€€In€a€second€communication,€dated€27€August€1999,€the€author€alleges€the€violation€of€articleŠ & v Š7€of€the€Covenant,€since€an€untimely€sentence€imposed€after€16€years€had€elapsed€between€theŠ  _ Ševents€and€effective€punishment€amounted€to€cruel,€inhuman€or€degrading€punishment.€AccordingŠ ų H Što€counsel,€the€sentence€imposed€on€Alfonso€Ruiz€Agudo,€after€the€statutory€time€limit€had€passed,Š į 1  Šwas€inhuman€and€incompatible€with€article€7€of€the€Covenant.€Š Ź   ŠĢ3.5€€The€author€further€maintains€that€there€was€a€violation€of€article€10,€paragraph€3,€of€theŠ œģ  ŠCovenant,€which€guarantees€the€right€to€a€penitentiary€system,€the€essential€aim€of€which€is€the€Š …Õ  Šreformation€and€social€rehabilitation€of€prisoners.€He€states€that€he€is€a€model€citizen,€as€shown€inŠ n¾  Ša€report€of€the€Guardia€Civil€of€his€home€town.€The€sentence€was€intended€instead€to€undermine€hisŠ W§  Šcivic€pride€and€to€denigrate€the€accused€personally,€this€being€contrary€to€article€10,€paragraph€3,Š @ Šof€the€Covenant.€Š )y ŠĢņ ņThe€State€party's€observations€on€admissibility€ó óŠ ūK ŠĢ4.1€€In€its€communication€dated€18€June€1999,€the€State€party€requests€that€the€complaint€relatingŠ Ī Što€article€14,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Covenant€be€declared€inadmissible,€since€on€no€occasion€had€theŠ · Šalleged€victim€complained€before€the€domestic€courts€or€Constitutional€Court€that€his€rights€asŠ  š Šguaranteed€under€article€14,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Covenant€had€been€violated;€nor€had€he€complainedŠ ‰Ł Šof€any€lack€of€equality€before€the€courts,€a€lack€of€publicly€held€proceedings€or€the€lack€of€aŠ rĀ Šcompetent,€independent€and€impartial€tribunal.€Š [« ŠĢ4.2€€With€regard€to€the€violation€of€article€14,€paragraph€3€(c),€of€the€Covenant,€the€State€party€pointsŠ -} Šout€that€the€right€to€be€tried€without€undue€delay€is€a€fundamental€right€under€Spanish€law.€The€StateŠ f Šparty€explains€in€its€communication€that€a€violation€due€to€the€excessive€length€of€proceedings€mayŠ ’O Šgive€rise€to€redress€in€substance€and/or€by€compensation.€In€the€case€of€the€right€to€proceedingsŠ č 8 Šwithin€a€reasonable€time,€once€the€delay€ends,€redress€in€substance€is€no€longer€possible.€Š Ń!!  ŠĢ4.3€€The€State€party€explains€that€compensatory€redress€may€be€demanded€in€accordance€with€theŠ £#ó" Šprocedure€laid€down€in€articles€292€et€seq.€of€the€Organization€of€Justice€Act,€consisting€in€aŠ Œ$Ü# Šcomplaint€against€the€abnormal€functioning€of€justice€brought€before€the€Ministry€of€Justice;€in€theŠ u%Å $ Ševent€of€disagreement,€application€may€be€made€for€judicial€review.€Š ^&®!% ŠĢ4.4€€In€this€respect,€the€State€party€refers€to€a€ruling€of€the€Constitutional€Court€dated€29€OctoberŠ 0(€#' Š1990,€according€to€which€"from€a€constitutional€point€of€view,€undue€delays€give€rise€to€only€oneŠ )i$( Šform€of€redress,€namely€the€ending€of€the€delays.€Appealing€on€those€grounds€under€the€ordinaryŠ *R%) Šprocedure€and€lodging€an€ņņamparoóó€application€once€they€have€ceased€is€pointless€š8šš8š€RecognitionŠ ė*;&* Šthat€such€delays€have€occurred€š8šš8š,€be€it€for€any€other€purpose€than€causing€the€delays€to€cease,Š Ō+$'+ Šshould€be€sought€by€the€person€concerned€through€the€appropriate€administrative€and€judicialŠ ½, (, Šprocedures"€(Prieto€Rodrguez€case).€Š ¦-ö(- Š‡4.5€€The€State€party€maintains€that€it€assumes€responsibility€for€the€rendering€of€justice€within€aŠ ° Šreasonable€time,€regardless€of€whether€any€delay€has€been€protested€or€not.€It€also€points€out€thatŠ ™é Šthe€criteria€applied€in€domestic€Spanish€law€to€determine€when€the€duration€of€a€proceeding€isŠ ‚Ņ Šunreasonable€are€those€set€forth€by€the€European€Court€of€Human€Rights,€whose€jurisprudence€isŠ k» Šdirectly€applicable€in€domestic€Spanish€law,€as€provided€by€article€10,€paragraph€2,€of€theŠ T¤ ŠConstitution.€Š =  ŠĢ4.6€€The€State€party€points€out€that,€when€a€complaint€for€unreasonable€delay€is€lodged€before€theŠ  _ ŠStrasbourg€institutions€in€relation€to€proceedings€that€have€already€ended,€that€is€to€say,€when€thereŠ ų H Šis€no€longer€a€possibility€of€redress€in€substance€but€only€by€way€of€compensation,€the€EuropeanŠ į 1  ŠCommission€of€Human€Rights,€by€its€ruling€of€6€July€1993,€has€declared€such€complaints€absolutelyŠ Ź   Šinadmissible€in€all€cases€on€the€grounds€that€domestic€remedies€have€not€been€exhausted,€since€theŠ ³  Šremedy€under€the€Organization€of€Justice€Act€has€not€been€used.€Š œģ  ŠĢ4.7€€In€the€case€in€question,€undue€delay€has€been€alleged€after€the€end€of€proceedings,€when€redressŠ n¾  Šin€substance€no€longer€applies,€but€only€redress€through€compensation.€According€to€the€State€party,Š W§  ŠAlfonso€Ruiz€Agudo€did€not€seek€any€compensatory€redress€for€the€alleged€undue€delay,€but€onlyŠ @ Šthe€non-execution€of€the€criminal€proceedings.€Š )y ŠĢ4.8€€With€regard€to€the€lack€of€verbatim€minutes€of€the€proceedings,€as€pointed€out€by€counsel,€theŠ ūK ŠState€maintains€that€there€is€no€article€of€the€Covenant€requiring€that€court€records€be€verbatim,€norŠ ä4 Šdoes€it€see€in€what€manner€Ruiz€Agudo€was€adversely€affected€by€the€fact€that€the€record€was€notŠ Ķ Šverbatim.€Since€on€no€occasion€was€that€violation€alleged€in€the€course€of€domestic€proceedings,€itŠ ¶ Šis€not€reasonable€to€object€ex€novo,€five€years€after€the€trial,€that€the€record€of€the€proceedings€wasŠ Ÿļ Šnot€verbatim.€Š ˆŲ ŠĢ4.9€€The€alleged€victim€maintains€that€the€summary€proceedings€rules€infringe€the€essential€principleŠ ZŖ Šof€equality€of€arms€in€judicial€proceedings.€According€to€the€State€party,€it€is€unreasonable€toŠ C“ Šcomplain€about€a€"legal€rule"€without€referring€to€which€specific€rights€of€the€alleged€victimŠ ,| Šguaranteed€under€the€Covenant€have€been€affected,€and€without€ever€having€made€the€complaintŠ e Šearlier€in€domestic€proceedings.€Š žN ŠĢ4.10€€As€far€as€the€alleged€violation€of€the€presumption€of€innocence€is€concerned,€the€State€partyŠ Š!   Šmaintains€that,€in€the€actual€documentation€brought€forward,€there€is€ample€incriminating€evidenceŠ ¹" ! Šon€which€to€found€his€conviction.€Š ¢#ņ" ŠĢņ ņThe€author's€comments€on€the€State€party's€observations€on€admissibility€ó óŠ t%Ä $ ŠĢ5.1€€In€his€communication€of€27€August€1999,€the€representative€of€the€author€maintains€that,€despiteŠ G'—"& Šthe€State's€contention€that€the€author€did€not€lodge€a€complaint€for€violation€of€the€rights€guaranteedŠ 0(€#' Šunder€article€14,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Covenant€in€domestic€proceedings,€the€application€for€ņņamparoóóŠ )i$( Šbefore€the€Constitutional€Court€demonstrates€that€there€was€a€complaint€of€violation€of€his€rightsŠ *R%) Šprotected€by€article€24€of€the€Spanish€Constitution,€which€recognizes€the€right€to€a€fair€trial€and€toŠ ė*;&* Šthe€presumption€of€innocence.€The€State€party's€observation€is€therefore€groundless.€Š Ō+$'+ ŠĢ5.2€€With€regard€to€the€State€party's€argument€that€domestic€remedies€had€not€been€exhausted,€theŠ ¦-ö(- Šauthor€reiterates€that€the€defendant€sought€recognition€of€his€right€to€judicial€proceedings€withoutŠ ° Šundue€delay€before€the€Constitutional€Court,€which€in€a€ruling€on€18€September€1996€said€that,€"withŠ ™é Šregard€to€recognition€of€the€right€to€judicial€proceedings€without€undue€delays,€constitutionalŠ ‚Ņ Šjurisprudence€has€from€the€start€required€that€a€prior€complaint€should€have€been€made€regardingŠ k» Šthe€delay,€with€explicit€reference€to€the€constitutional€principle,€and€that€the€proceedings€before€theŠ T¤ Šcourt€should€be€under€way€(š8šš8š),€a€condition€that€does€not€appear€to€have€been€met.€Moreover,Š =  Šsince€a€firm€sentence€has€been€pronounced,€prior€remedy€must€be€sought€through€the€appropriateŠ & v Šchannel".€According€to€counsel,€the€author€had€not€asked€the€Constitutional€Court€for€compensationŠ  _ Šfor€the€violation€of€his€right€to€proceedings€without€undue€delay.€He€had€requested€that€the€CourtŠ ų H Šshould€recognize€that€the€violation€had€taken€place,€thereby€calling€the€State's€attention€to€theŠ į 1  Šinfringement€of€a€fundamental€right.€The€requirement€that€a€new€judicial€action€should€be€initiatedŠ Ź   Što€seek€"redress"€is€not€consistent€with€the€request€brought€before€the€Constitutional€Court€by€theŠ ³  Šauthor.€Furthermore,€in€accordance€with€article€5,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€the€ruleŠ œģ  Šregarding€the€exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies€does€not€hold€when€the€application€of€the€remediesŠ …Õ  Šis€unreasonably€prolonged.€Š n¾  ŠĢ5.3€€With€regard€to€the€jurisprudence€of€the€European€Commission€of€Human€Rights€concerning€theŠ @ Šadmissibility€of€cases€relating€to€undue€delays€in€judicial€proceedings,€counsel€considers€that€it€isŠ )y Šin€no€way€binding€on€the€Committee.€The€author€has€exhausted€the€legal€remedies€in€his€country€byŠ b Šappealing€to€the€Constitutional€Court€and€by€being€denied€recognition€as€the€victim€of€a€violationŠ ūK Šof€those€rights€on€the€grounds€that€he€should€have€appealed€as€soon€as€the€violation€of€the€right€toŠ ä4 Šproceedings€without€undue€delay€had€become€apparent.€The€Committee€notes€that,€in€its€fourthŠ Ķ Šperiodic€report,€Spain€stated€as€follows:€"Spanish€law€does€not€require€a€party€to€protest€during€theŠ ¶ Šproceedings€about€their€excessive€duration.€Consequently,€irrespective€of€whether€or€not€the€partyŠ Ÿļ Šconcerned€has€protested€about€the€delay,€the€State€has€a€responsibility€to€render€justice€within€aŠ ˆŲ Šreasonable€time.€And,€as€a€consequence€of€that€duty€and€responsibility,€the€State€must€compensateŠ qĮ Šthe€party€for€the€moral€injury€deriving€from€the€non-performance€of€a€State€obligation€and,€asŠ ZŖ Šappropriate,€the€resulting€material€injury.€For€the€purposes€of€such€compensation,€if€there€has€beenŠ C“ Šno€declaration€by€a€court€or€by€the€Constitutional€Court€concerning€the€excessive€duration€ofŠ ,| Šproceedings,€the€General€Council€of€the€Judiciary€shall€report€on€the€existence€of€such€excessiveŠ e Šduration€and€the€Administration€shall€set€the€amount€of€compensation€to€be€awarded€to€the€victim."€Š žN ŠĢ5.4€€As€to€the€argument€regarding€the€inadmissibility€of€the€complaint€concerning€the€lack€ofŠ Š!   Šverbatim€minutes,€counsel€maintains€that€the€right€of€appeal€is€neither€real€nor€effective€if€there€areŠ ¹" ! Šno€verbatim€minutes€of€the€statements€of€witnesses€and€experts,€since€a€second€court€cannot€properlyŠ ¢#ņ" Šreview€what€was€decided€by€a€court€of€first€instance€if€it€does€not€have€a€verbatim€account€beforeŠ ‹$Ū# Šit.€In€his€appeal,€the€accused€requested€that€the€value€of€the€evidence€should€be€reviewed€on€groundsŠ t%Ä $ Šof€error.€The€lack€of€verbatim€minutes€meant€that€significant€details€of€the€statements€made€byŠ ]&­!% Šwitnesses€and€experts€might€have€been€omitted.€Š F'–"& ŠĢ5.5€€According€to€counsel,€the€author€was€placed€at€a€disadvantage€in€the€proceedings€on€accountŠ )h$( Šof€the€infringement€of€the€right€to€equality€of€arms,€owing€to€the€fact€that€the€criminal€procedure€wasŠ *Q%) Šbiased€by€law€against€him€and€in€favour€of€the€prosecutor€and€the€accusing€parties.€The€author'sŠ ź*:&* Šcounsel€points€out€that€the€accused€had€to€forego€the€opportunities€offered€by€article€790,€paragraphŠ Ó+#'+ Š1,€of€the€Criminal€Procedure€Act€and€was€unable€to€present€further€evidence€by,€for€example,€againŠ ¼, (, Šrequesting€that€the€original€files€of€his€accounts€be€produced,€with€which€he€could€haveŠ „-õ(- Šdemonstrated€that€he€had€not€kept€the€money€that€he€had€been€accused€of€misappropriating.€Š ° ŠĢ5.6€€With€regard€to€the€State's€observations€concerning€the€complaint€that€the€presumption€ofŠ ‚Ņ Šinnocence€had€not€been€respected,€counsel€points€out€that€the€author€was€deprived€of€decisiveŠ k» Ševidence€to€prove€his€innocence,€namely€the€original€files€of€his€bank€accounts€at€the€Caja€RuralŠ T¤ ŠProvincial€in€possession€of€the€private€accusing€party.€One€of€the€effects€of€the€right€to€presumptionŠ =  Šof€innocence€is€that€the€burden€of€proof€should€fall€on€the€accusing€party€and€that€the€accused€shouldŠ & v Šenjoy€the€benefit€of€the€doubt.€The€ruling€of€the€Provincial€High€Court€recognizes€that€the€burdenŠ  _ Šof€proving€his€innocence€was€placed€on€the€accused€when€it€said€that€"while€there€is€no€doubt€thatŠ ų H Šit€would€have€been€preferable€to€have€the€originals€of€the€accounting€transactions€concerned,€itŠ į 1  Šwould€otherwise€have€been€necessary€to€produce€data€or€facts€to€challenge€the€reliability€of€theŠ Ź   Šcomputer€files".€And€yet€the€accused€could€only€demonstrate€his€innocence€by€referring€to€hisŠ ³  Šoriginal€accounting€documents.€Š œģ  ŠĢņ ņDecision€on€admissibility€ó óŠ n¾  ŠĢ6.1€€At€its€seventy-first€session,€held€in€March€and€April€2001,€the€Committee€considered€theŠ A‘ Šquestion€of€admissibility€of€the€communication€and€ascertained,€as€it€is€required€by€article€5,Š *z Šparagraph€2€(a),€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€that€the€same€matter€was€not€being€examined€underŠ c Šanother€procedure€of€international€investigation€or€settlement.€Š üL ŠĢ6.2€€With€regard€to€the€allegation€of€undue€delay,€the€Committee€took€note€of€the€State€party's€replyŠ Ī Što€the€communication,€in€which€the€State€party€claimed€that€domestic€remedies€had€not€beenŠ · Šexhausted.€The€State€party€pointed€out€that,€in€July€1993,€the€European€Court€of€Human€Rights€hadŠ  š Šdeclared€all€complaints€of€undue€delay€inadmissible€on€the€grounds€that€domestic€remedies€had€notŠ ‰Ł Šbeen€exhausted,€if€the€remedy€available€under€articles€292€et€seq.€of€the€Organization€of€Justice€ActŠ rĀ Šhad€not€been€used.€However,€the€Committee€took€into€account€the€fact€that,€in€the€case€in€question,Š [« Šproceedings€had€begun€in€1983€and€no€judgement€had€been€handed€down€until€1994,€and€that€theŠ D” ŠState€party€did€not€substantiate€the€reason€for€the€delay€in€its€submission.€The€Committee€concludedŠ -} Šthat,€in€the€circumstances,€the€domestic€remedies€had€been€unreasonably€prolonged€under€the€termsŠ f Šof€article€5,€paragraph€2€(b),€of€the€Optional€Protocol€and,€consequently,€that€provision€did€notŠ ’O Šprevent€it€from€examining€the€merits€of€the€present€communication.€Š č 8 ŠĢ6.3€€With€respect€to€the€arguments€put€forward€by€the€author€of€the€communication€that€article€7€andŠ ŗ" ! Šarticle€10,€paragraph€3,€of€the€Covenant€had€been€violated,€the€Committee€considered€that€thoseŠ £#ó" Šclaims€had€not€been€duly€substantiated€for€the€purposes€of€admissibility.€Š Œ$Ü# ŠĢ6.4€€Consequently,€on€15€March€2001,€the€Human€Rights€Committee€declared€the€communicationŠ ^&®!% Šadmissible€insofar€as€it€might€raise€questions€related€to€article€14€of€the€Covenant.€Š G'—"& ŠĢņ ņThe€State€party's€observations€on€the€merits€of€the€communication€ó óŠ )i$( ŠĢ7.1€€In€its€observations€of€12€November€2001,€the€State€party€confirms€that€the€proceedings€againstŠ ģ*<&* ŠAlfonso€Ruiz€Agudo€had€been€"excessively"€long€and€that,€in€domestic€legal€proceedings,€theŠ Õ+%'+ ŠCriminal€Court€had€made€a€statement€to€that€effect€in€its€judgement€of€21€December€1994.€The€StateŠ ¾,(, Šparty€therefore€considers€that,€if€the€Committee€were€to€state€in€its€comments€that€there€had€been€aŠ §-÷(- Šviolation€of€the€right€to€be€tried€without€undue€delay,€it€would€be€repeating€something€that€had€beenŠ ° Šconfirmed€domestically.€Š ™é ŠĢ7.2€€With€regard€to€the€consequences€of€the€delay,€the€author€had€entered€an€appeal€to€be€given€aŠ k» Šminimum€sentence€of€the€shortest€duration.€According€to€the€State€party,€his€appeal€had€been€heardŠ T¤ Šby€the€Criminal€Court,€which€had€reduced€the€sentence€to€intermediate€punishment€of€the€shortestŠ =  Šduration.€Š & v ŠĢ7.3€€On€the€other€hand,€the€State€party€notes€that€the€author€did€not€request€the€Constitutional€CourtŠ ų H Što€acknowledge€the€violation€of€the€right€to€be€tried€without€undue€delay,€as€his€counsel€contends,Š į 1  Šbut€that€the€author€requested€the€non-enforcement€of€the€sentence.€The€State€party€argues€that€thereŠ Ź   Šwas€no€legal€basis€for€that€petition,€since€neither€Spanish€law€nor€the€Covenant€provides€for€theŠ ³  Šnon-enforcement€of€sentences€in€cases€where€the€trial€has€been€excessively€long.€Š œģ  ŠĢ7.4€€The€State€party€reaffirms€that,€in€this€case,€only€financial€compensation€is€possible.€However,Š n¾  Šsuch€compensation€was€never€claimed€by€the€author,€and€hence€the€State€party€does€not€understandŠ W§  Šwhy€the€Committee€states€that€domestic€remedies€had€been€unreasonably€prolonged€in€the€terms€ofŠ @ Šarticle€5,€paragraph€2€(b),€of€the€Optional€Protocol.€In€this€regard,€the€State€party€considers€that,€ifŠ )y Šthe€author€had€filed€a€claim€for€financial€compensation€in€1996€through€the€appropriate€channel,€ofŠ b Šwhich€he€had€been€informed€by€the€Constitutional€Court,€he€would€already€have€received€suchŠ ūK Šcompensation.€Š ä4 ŠĢ7.5€€With€regard€to€the€alleged€violation€of€the€presumption€of€innocence,€the€State€party€putsŠ ¶ Šforward€three€counter-arguments.€Š Ÿļ ŠĢ7.6€€First,€the€State€party€points€out€that€Alfonso€Ruiz€Agudo€was€not€convicted€on€the€basis€ofŠ qĮ Šcomputerized€data€alone,€and€this€is€borne€out€by€the€judgement€handed€down€by€the€CriminalŠ ZŖ ŠCourt.€Š C“ ŠĢ7.7€€Secondly,€the€State€party€considers€that€the€defence€strategy€of€Alfonso€Ruiz€Agudo,€in€whichŠ e Šhe€claimed€that€an€office€employee,€one€Alfonso€de€Gea€Robles,€was€responsible€for€the€offence,Š žN Šand€yet€did€not€ask€to€be€acquitted€but€only€to€be€given€a€minimum€sentence€of€the€shortest€duration,Š ē 7 Šconstitutes€an€acknowledgement€of€criminal€conduct€on€the€part€of€the€author.€Š Š!   ŠĢ7.8€€Thirdly,€with€regard€to€the€computerized€record,€the€State€party€explains€that€bank€operationsŠ ¢#ņ" Šare€reflected€in€computerized€records€that€cover€all€the€daily€transactions€of€the€cash€depositŠ ‹$Ū# Šmachine€and€the€cashier's€department;€those€records€were€brought€to€the€oral€proceedings€forŠ t%Ä $ Šexamination.€The€State€party€emphasizes€that€the€defence's€own€experts€stated€in€the€oralŠ ]&­!% Šproceedings€that€they€did€not€question€the€computerized€transcription€of€the€accounts.€Š F'–"& ŠĢ7.9€€In€the€light€of€that€information,€the€State€party€points€out€that€the€judgement€handed€down€byŠ )h$( Šthe€Provincial€High€Court€does€not€reverse€the€burden€of€proof.€What€it€says€is€that€the€author€isŠ *Q%) Šobjecting€to€a€legitimate€piece€of€evidence€that€he€did€not€challenge€at€the€proper€time,€and€that€heŠ ź*:&* Šshould€have€contested€it,€adducing€evidence€in€his€favour€against€the€incriminating€evidence.€Š Ó+#'+ ŠĢ7.10€€With€regard€to€the€records€of€the€trial,€the€State€party€reiterates€that€no€article€of€the€CovenantŠ „-õ(- Šrequires€the€records€of€a€trial€to€be€verbatim.€It€also€maintains€that€the€author€signed€the€records,Š ° Štogether€with€his€counsel,€in€full€conformity€with€the€procedure€and€that€no€complaint€was€everŠ ™é Šmade€using€domestic€remedies.€Š ‚Ņ ŠĢ7.11€€Moreover,€the€State€party€maintains€that€no€domestic€complaint€was€made€concerning€theŠ T¤ Šsummary€proceedings€rules€and€the€principle€of€the€equality€of€arms,€and€the€Covenant€does€notŠ =  Šadmit€abstract€reviews€of€the€law.€Š & v ŠĢņ ņThe€author's€comments€on€the€State€party's€observations€on€the€merits€of€the€communication€ó óŠ ų H ŠĢ8.1€€In€his€comments€of€21€January€2002,€the€author's€representative€maintains€that€the€right€to€beŠ Ė   Štried€without€undue€delay€is€a€duty€of€all€the€States€which€have€signed€the€Covenant,€and€that€theŠ “  Šeffective€exercise€of€that€right€does€not€require€a€prior€complaint€from€the€accused.€He€thereforeŠ ķ  Šconsiders€that€the€Constitutional€Court's€decision€reflects€a€bureaucratic€spirit€in€its€explicit€refusalŠ †Ö  Što€acknowledge€the€existence€of€a€violation,€on€the€pretext€that€the€author€had€not€previouslyŠ oæ  Šcomplained€to€the€intervening€legal€authorities.€Š XØ  ŠĢ8.2€€Counsel€argues€that€the€double€system€of€redress€for€undue€delays€referred€to€in€the€State€party'sŠ *z Šsubmission€is€not€effectively€implemented.€Redress€for,€and€acknowledgement€of,€the€violationŠ c Šmust,€because€of€their€very€nature,€be€made€during€the€trial€proceeding€itself€and€not€in€a€newŠ üL Šadministrative€proceeding,€which€could€last€up€to€nine€years€-€two€years€in€a€court€of€first€instanceŠ å5 Šand€seven€years€with€an€application€for€judicial€review.€In€view€of€the€foregoing,€the€author'sŠ Ī Šrepresentative€maintains€that€"legislation€to€prevent€undue€delays"€should€have€been€established€thatŠ · Šwould,€as€a€minimum,€allow€the€judge€in€the€same€proceeding€to€draw€up,€having€regard€to€theŠ  š Šduration€of€the€proceeding,€an€inventory€of€compensatory€measures.€Such€measures€should€include:Š ‰Ł Šreduction€of€the€sentence;€exemption€from€serving€the€sentence;€suspension€of€the€prison€sentence;Š rĀ Šor€the€right€to€directly€quantifiable€financial€compensation,€without€needing€to€have€recourse€toŠ [« Šanother€procedure.€Š D” ŠĢ8.3€€Counsel€points€out€that€the€Government€refused€to€pardon€Alfonso€Ruiz€Agudo€in€spite€of€aŠ f Šspecific€petition€to€that€end€from€the€author€and€the€order€for€reparation€under€article€4,€paragraphŠ ’O Š4,€of€the€Criminal€Code.€He€further€contends€that€the€Constitutional€Court€should€haveŠ č 8 Šacknowledged€that€a€fundamental€right€had€been€violated€and,€consequently,€suggested€that€theŠ Ń!!  ŠGovernment€consider€pardon€as€a€means€of€providing€satisfaction.€Š ŗ" ! ŠĢ8.4€€Concerning€the€reduction€of€the€sentence€granted€by€the€Criminal€Court,€counsel€explains€thatŠ Œ$Ü# Šthe€author€did€not€have€a€criminal€record,€and€the€judge€could€have€imposed€the€minimum€sentence.Š u%Å $ ŠHowever,€the€judge€imposed€intermediate€punishment€of€the€shortest€duration,€so€that€the€reductionŠ ^&®!% Šof€the€sentence€was€purely€illusory.€Š G'—"& ŠĢ8.5€€As€regards€the€presumption€of€innocence,€counsel€reiterates€that€the€decisive€evidence€forŠ )i$( Šdemonstrating€the€author's€innocence€was€not€an€original€document€but€an€arbitrary€reconstructionŠ *R%) Šproduced€by€the€complainant.€This€evidence€was€later€challenged€by€the€author,€who€requested€theŠ ė*;&* Šoriginal€documents,€which€were€not€supplied€by€the€bank.€It€is€also€pointed€out€that€the€Caja€RuralŠ Ō+$'+ Šde€Cehegn€did€not€have€a€computerized€information€system€in€1983€and€that€the€procedure€forŠ ½, (, Šrecording€credits€and€debits€was€mechanical.€Š ¦-ö(- Š‡8.6€€With€regard€to€the€personal€testimony€mentioned€by€the€State€party€as€other€forms€of€proof,Š ° Šcounsel€affirms€that€such€evidence€pertains€to€other€elements€of€the€accusation,€inconclusive€points,Š ™é Šsuch€as€the€existence€of€multiple€loans,€which€did€not€prove€the€author's€guilt.€Š ‚Ņ ŠĢ8.7€€Counsel€points€out€that€the€record€of€the€trial€states€that€Alfonso€Ruiz€Agudo€never€admittedŠ T¤ Što€being€guilty€as€charged.€The€record€also€shows€that€the€experts€acknowledged€that€they€could€notŠ =  Šprovide€more€information€without€having€other€pieces€of€evidence,€such€as€Mr.€Ruiz€Agudo'sŠ & v Šaccounts.€Š  _ ŠĢ8.8€€As€to€the€equality€of€arms,€counsel€maintains€that,€while€the€State€party€pointed€out€that€theŠ į 1  Šauthor€had€not€complained€of€this€inequality€in€domestic€remedies,€it€nevertheless€concealed€theŠ Ź   Šexistence€of€the€judgement€handed€down€by€the€Constitutional€Court€on€15€November€1990,€inŠ ³  Šwhich€the€question€of€the€unconstitutionality€of€this€matter€is€rejected.€Š œģ  ŠĢ8.9€€With€regard€to€the€record€of€the€trial,€the€author's€representative€considers€that€the€right€ofŠ n¾  Šappeal€requires,€as€a€basic€guarantee,€that€the€court€of€higher€instance€have€a€verbatim€record€inŠ W§  Šwhich€it€can€consult€the€details€of€the€outcome€of€the€trial€and€the€evidence€adduced.€If€there€is€onlyŠ @ Ša€summary€record,€no€real€appeal€can€be€made€on€the€basis€of€the€facts€of€the€case.€Š )y ŠĢ8.10€€In€his€comments€on€3€July€2002,€the€author's€representative€refers€to€a€judgement€handed€downŠ ūK Šby€the€Criminal€Division€of€the€Court€on€26€December€2000,€which€states€that€"the€jurisprudenceŠ ä4 Šof€this€Division€has€clearly€established€that€the€ruling€on€the€credibility€of€the€statements€that€wereŠ Ķ Šmade€during€the€trial€is€a€matter€extraneous€to€the€application€for€judicial€review,€since€aŠ ¶ Šdetermination€can€be€made€only€by€a€court€that€directly€heard€such€statements,€that€is,€with€its€ownŠ Ÿļ Šsenses€and€immediately".€In€this€regard,€according€to€counsel€the€court€itself€acknowledges€that,Š ˆŲ Šwithout€a€verbatim€record€of€all€the€statements€made,€there€can€be€no€real€review€in€a€higher€court.€Š qĮ ŠĢņ ņConsideration€as€to€the€merits€ó óŠ C“ ŠĢ9.1€€The€Human€Rights€Committee€has€considered€the€present€communication€in€the€light€of€allŠ f Šwritten€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€parties,€in€accordance€with€article€5,€paragraph€1,€ofŠ ’O Šthe€Optional€Protocol.€The€Committee€notes€that€the€State€party€has€expressly€confirmed€that€theŠ č 8 Štrial€of€Alfonso€Ruiz€Agudo€was€excessively€long,€and€that€this€was€stated€in€the€domestic€legalŠ Ń!!  Šremedies;€however,€the€State€party€has€given€no€explanation€to€justify€such€a€delay.€The€CommitteeŠ ŗ" ! Šrecalls€its€position€as€reflected€in€its€General€Comment€on€article€14,€which€provides€that€all€stagesŠ £#ó" Šof€judicial€proceedings€must€take€place€without€undue€delay€and€that,€to€make€this€right€effective,Š Œ$Ü# Ša€procedure€must€be€available€to€ensure€that€this€applies€in€all€instances.€The€Committee€considersŠ u%Å $ Šthat,€in€the€present€case,€a€delay€of€11€years€in€the€judicial€process€at€first€instance€and€of€more€thanŠ ^&®!% Š13€years€until€the€rejection€of€the€appeal€violates€the€author's€right€under€article€14,€paragraph€3€(c),Š G'—"& Šof€the€Covenant,€to€be€tried€without€undue€delay.€2/€€The€Committee€further€considers€that€the€mereŠ 0(€#' Špossibility€of€obtaining€compensation€after,€and€independently€of,€a€trial€that€was€unduly€prolongedŠ )i$( Šdoes€not€constitute€an€effective€remedy.€Š *R%) ŠĢ9.2€€The€Committee€has€taken€note€of€the€arguments€presented€by€the€parties€concerning€theŠ Ō+$'+ Ševaluation€of€the€documented€incriminating€evidence.€The€Committee€refers€to€its€jurisprudence€andŠ ½, (, Šreiterates€that,€while€article€14€guarantees€the€right€to€a€fair€trial,€it€is€not€for€the€Committee€but€forŠ ¦-ö(- Šthe€domestic€courts€to€consider€the€facts€and€evidence€in€a€particular€case,€unless€it€can€beŠ ° Šascertained€that€the€evaluation€was€clearly€biased,€arbitrary€or€amounted€to€a€denial€of€justice.€3/€Š ™é ŠIn€the€present€case,€the€documents€before€the€Committee€do€not€demonstrate€that€the€trial€sufferedŠ ‚Ņ Šfrom€any€such€defect.€The€Committee€also€takes€note€of€the€State€party's€observations€where€it€isŠ k» Šargued€that€the€author€never€maintained€before€the€domestic€courts€that€the€evidence€of€theŠ T¤ Šcomputerized€records€was€unlawful,€and€notes€that,€according€to€the€judgement€handed€down€by€theŠ =  ŠCriminal€Court,€several€forms€of€evidence€were€taken€into€consideration€with€a€view€to€establishingŠ & v Šthe€facts.€Consequently,€the€Committee€concludes€that€there€was€no€violation€of€article€14,€paragraphŠ  _ Š1,€of€the€Covenant.€Š ų H ŠĢ9.3€€With€regard€to€the€absence€of€a€verbatim€record€of€the€trial,€the€Committee€finds€that€the€authorŠ Ź   Šhas€not€demonstrated€in€what€way€he€was€caused€harm€by€the€absence€of€such€a€document.Š ³  ŠConsequently,€the€Committee€considers€that€there€was€no€violation€either€of€article€14,€paragraphŠ œģ  Š1,€or€of€the€right€of€appeal€provided€for€in€article€14,€paragraph€5.€Š …Õ  ŠĢ9.4€€Finally,€the€Committee€takes€note€of€the€author's€contention€that€the€summary€proceeding,€inŠ W§  Šparticular€article€790€of€the€Criminal€Procedure€Act,€infringes€the€principle€of€equality€of€arms.€TheŠ @ ŠCommittee€finds€that€the€author,€on€the€basis€of€the€information€and€documentation€submitted,€hasŠ )y Šnot€substantiated€his€complaint€for€the€purposes€of€determining€that€there€was€a€violation€of€articleŠ b Š14,€paragraph€1,€in€this€respect.€Š ūK ŠĢ10.€€The€Human€Rights€Committee,€acting€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Optional€Protocol€toŠ Ķ Šthe€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€is€of€the€view€that€the€facts€before€itŠ ¶ Šconstitute€violations€by€Spain€of€article€14,€paragraph€3€(c),€of€the€Covenant.€Š Ÿļ ŠĢ11.€€In€accordance€with€article€2,€paragraph€3€(a),€of€the€Covenant,€the€State€party€has€the€obligationŠ qĮ Što€provide€an€effective€remedy,€including€compensation€for€the€excessive€length€of€the€trial.€TheŠ ZŖ ŠState€party€should€adopt€effective€measures€to€prevent€proceedings€from€being€unduly€prolongedŠ C“ Šand€to€ensure€that€individuals€are€not€obliged€to€initiate€a€new€judicial€action€to€claim€compensation.€Š ,| ŠĢ12.€€Considering€that,€by€becoming€a€party€to€the€Optional€Protocol,€the€State€party€has€recognizedŠ žN Šthe€competence€of€the€Committee€to€determine€whether€there€has€been€a€violation€of€the€CovenantŠ ē 7 Šor€not€and€that,€pursuant€to€article€2€of€the€Covenant,€the€State€party€has€undertaken€to€ensure€to€allŠ Š!   Šindividuals€within€its€territory€and€subject€to€its€jurisdiction€the€rights€recognized€in€the€CovenantŠ ¹" ! Šand€to€provide€an€effective€and€enforceable€remedy€in€case€a€violation€has€been€established,€theŠ ¢#ņ" ŠCommittee€wishes€to€receive€from€the€State€party,€within€90€days,€information€about€the€measuresŠ ‹$Ū# Štaken€to€give€effect€to€the€Committee's€Views.€It€also€requests€the€State€party€to€publish€these€Views.€Š t%Ä $ ŠĢ______________________________€Š F'–"& ŠĢ[Adopted€in€English,€French€and€Spanish,€the€Spanish€text€being€the€original€version.€SubsequentlyŠ )h$( Što€be€issued€also€in€Arabic,€Chinese€and€Russian€as€part€of€the€Committee's€annual€report€to€theŠ *Q%) ŠGeneral€Assembly.]€Š ź*:&* ŠĢ*€€The€following€members€of€the€Committee€participated€in€the€examination€of€the€presentŠ ¼, (, Šcommunication:€Mr.€Abdelfattah€Amor,€Mr.€Nisuke€Ando,€Mr.€Prafullachandra€Natwarlal€Bhagwati,Š „-õ(- ŠMs.€Christine€Chanet,€Mr.€Maurice€Glle€Ahanhanzo,€Mr.€Louis€Henkin,€Mr.€Ahmed€Tawfik€Khalil,Š ° ŠMr.€Eckart€Klein,€Mr.€David€Kretzmer,€Mr.€Rajsoomer€Lallah,€Ms.€Cecilia€Medina€Quiroga,€Mr.Š ™é ŠRafael€Rivas€Posada,€Mr.€Martin€Scheinin,€Mr.€Ivan€Shearer,€Mr.€Hipš;šlito€Solari€Yrigoyen€and€Mr.Š ‚Ņ ŠMaxwell€Yalden.€Š k» ŠĢĢņ ņņņNotesóóó óŠ & v ŠĢ1/€€Communications€dated€12€March€1998€and€27€August€1999.€Š ł I ŠĢ2/€€See,€for€example,€communications€No.€614/1995,€ņņSamuel€Thomas€v.€Jamaicaóó:€No.€676/1996,Š Ė   ŠņņYasseen€and€Thomas€v.€Republic€of€Guyanaóó;€and€No.€526/1993,€ņņHill€and€Hill€v.€Spainóó.€Š “  ŠĢ3/€€See,€for€example,€communications€No.€634/1995,€ņņDesmond€Amore€v.€Jamaicaóó,€and€No.Š †Ö  Š679/1996,€ņņMohamed€Refaat€Darwish€v.€Austriaóó.€Š oæ  ŠÓ_Ó