This file is a mirror of EUSKAL HERRIA JOURNAL by Basque Red Net.
REPORT WRITEN FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION OF DOCUMENT CAT/34/ADD. 7-SPAIN- BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE
TAT - GROUP AGAINST TORTURE IN THE BASQUE COUNTRY
NOVEMBER 1997
TAT - GROUP AGAINST TORTURE IN THE BASQUE COUNTRY C/Iturribide nº 26 - 1º, 1 Dep
48006 BILBO
BASQUE COUNTRY
TEL: 34-4-479 02 16
FAX: 34-4-416 06 06
REPORT WRITEN FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION OF DOCUMENT CAT/34/ADD. 7-SPAIN- BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE
I - Introduction
II - 1st Art. of the Convention
III - 2nd Art. of the Convention. Effective measures to be taken in order to discontinue acts of torture.
- PREVENTIVE ACTIVITY OF THE C.P.T.
- LEGISLATIVE MEASURES
- JUDICIAL MEASURESA- CONCESSION OF A 24 HOUR EXTENSION OF DETENTION
B- GRANTING OF REQUEST FOR INCOMMUNICADO DETENTION
C- HABEAS CORPUS- FACTUAL NON-APPLICABILITY
- ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES:A- C.P.T. RECOMMENDATIONS
B- ATTITUDE OF FORENSIC SURGEONS
IV - 12th and 13th Arts. of the Convention: Prompt and unbiased investigation should there be any grounds for it.
- TAKING OF STATEMENTS OF DETAINEES.
- STANCE OF THE MINISTRY OF PROSECUTION REGARDING OPEN LAWSUITS ON CHARGES OF TORTURE.
-INFORMATION ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT ON TORTURE CASES.
V - 15th Art. of the Convention: Statements of detainees drawn under torture to be disregarded as accusatory evidence.
VI - Minors
VII - Deaths occurred in Police Stations.
VIII - Conclusions
The Group Against Torture, Torturaren Aurkako Taldea ( TAT ) based in the Basque Country, sincerely applauds the Committee Against Torture for their praiseworthy commitment to eradicate such an execrable practice which is so much degrading the social and political structures of the State.
The Group Against Torture aims to contribute with this report to the Committee Against Torture by providing some elements we find of paramount importance after a minute analysis of the phenomenon of TORTURE. The Group grounds its thesis on the extensive evidence acquired through, both legal medical assistance reports on victims of ill-treatment and torture and through the quite enlightening reports released by the European Committee For The Prevention Of Torture, based on its repeated monitoring visits (April 1991, April 1994 and June 1994). Likewise, the Group Against Torture incorporates the conclusions released by the Human Rights Committe document, with reference CCOR/C/79/Add 61, dated April 3 1996, which illustrate the results of a survey carried out by several international N.O.Gs such as Amnesty International.
The survey will be focused on the grade of application of certain regulations settled by the Agreements of the Convention Against Torture, as well as on a number of elements of great relevance concerning the existence and eradication of torture.
II - 1st Art. of the Convention.
1st Art. - Typification
Even though express banning of torture is in force in the Spanish State since 1978, enacted by the 15th Art. of the Spanish Constitution, the furidical fitting of offences of ill-treatment and torture has so far only been possible by refering to other types of offence such as " injuries" or " homicide".
Yet, with regards to the legal definition or typification of the objective element contained in the 1st Art. of the Convention Against Torture, the G.A.T. endorses that a number of changes were made in that respect in Spanish internal regulations in April 23 1996 after a minute analysis of the 2nd Spanish periodical report by the Committee. Thus with the enactment of the New Penal Code, in force since May 1996, " torture" has reached the penal status of a severe offence, ( 173rd art. and subsequent ones ) and the penalties applied to punish it have increased, ranging from six months up to six years of preventive imprisonment, in deed more in accordance with the spirit of the agreements included in the 4th Art. of the Convention on International Human Rights Law.
However satisfied with this substantial amendment, the Group Against Torture understands that the typification of this offence aimed at protecting the juridical principle of " Moral Intergrity " proves itself to be somewhat ambiguous and may further lead to juridical defencelessness, since in every case, a clear definition and demarcation of this concept will depend on doctrine and jurisprudence. In this sense, the Group believes that a good chance to incorporate a clear and accurate definition of the concept of torture, such as the one provided by the Convention which includes "distressing pain or suffering, be it phisical or psichological" has lamentably been missed.
Yet, It is well worth noting that in the period of time this new Penal Code has been in force, this article has not even applied.
Although we do welcome this substantial amendment, we are still highly concerned that this correction has not come along with any real and effectual measures to ensure and effect its completion as we will now see.
III - 2nd Art. of the Convention.
- 2nd Art.
1. Every State will take effective measures, legislative, administrative, judicial or of every other kind to deter any acts constituting torture in their jurisdiction.
>PREVENTIVE ACTIVITY OF THE C.P.T.
In its 3rd periodical report, the Spanish State commends (sections 12-10) the preventive activity undertaken by the European Council Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT). From the conclusions reached by them after the three reports released to this date, we should like to underline the following:
Conclusions stated in the 1st report of the CPT ( paragraph 25) "... it seems to us quite premature to ascertain that Torture has been eradicated" in the Spanish State.
They once and again come to emphasize "the areas of risk" of torture, and in their 2nd report ( paragraph 20) they clearly state that they are foced to reiterate the afore mentioned comment regarding the non-eradication of torture in the Spanish State, in the light of the evidence at their disposal.
Their 3rd visit took place ( from 10th to 14th June 1994) on occasion of several detentions carried out by the Civil Guard in Gupuzkoa. The CPT was accredited by the 7th Art. sect. 2 ot the Convention 2. Besides their periodical visits, the Committee will be authrised to "arrange any other visit should the circumstances warranty a further visit" and according to the CPT itself " the allegations received in early 1994 gave them grounds to determine the possibility may arise of a clear risk of torture." ( Paragraph 5, report 3 )
In report No. 3, paragraph 33, they point out the following assertions by the law court magistrate examinig the cse concerning the likely existence of torture:
In the writ of 21 July 1994, paragraph 27, the examining magistrate at the Central Trial Court No. 5, resolves that " None of the detainees in the proceedings at issue has been subjected to any kind of ill-treatment or torture" . Based on the information afore mentioned, the CPT asserts that " the CPT is far from sharing such certainty". It furthermore asserts that such information per se suffixes to ground our concern as to the treatment received by at least some of the detainees in that police operation, while they remained in custody with the Civil Guard.
* ( We invite you to read the account of the facts given by those detained in the above mentioned dates, in their subsiquent declarations. ( Appendix 1.)).
So the Group Against Torture, founds its thesis, on the public reports on the findings of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture in their repeated visits ( April 1991, April 1994 and June 1994 ) to diverse confinement centres and penitentiary institutions, where they had the opportunity to hear the live testimony of allegers of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and other kinds of human rights violations during incommunicado detentions. Furthermore contrary to what is hold in the last report released by the Spanish State, section 2, the Group counts on evidence that substantiates the existence of other reports of the Committee concerning their two last monitoring visits in 1997 that have been unauthorised for publication.
1) 17-18 January 1997, visit to Soto del Real comfinement center to meet with a Basque Independence Movement political prisoner, Josu Arkauz, who after serving a sentence in France was handed by the French police over to the Civil Guard on the Spanish - French border, incommunicado, transferred to Madrid and subjected to torture, according to his own testimony. This procedure of the CAT poses certain parallels with their ad hoc visit in June 1994 due to his expulsion from France, from where he was handed over to Spanish State Law Enforcement Agents, and subjected to incommunicado detention without a due court order.
2) 21-28 April 1997, visit to, among others, confinement centers in Ceuta and Melilla, both in the the African Continent.
Taking the 2nd Art. of the Convention word for word, we are in a positon to pinpoint the exact areas of risk where Legislative as well as Administrative and Judicial measures should be taken.
LEGISLATIVE MEASURES:
Regarding the issue of effective legislative measures to be taken to prevent acts of torture, we will mainly focus on the ligal dispositions in force that regulate the incommunicado detention to up to 5 days, for any "person involved or related with armed groups, individuals, terrorists or insurgent people.." 384th Art.bis (L.C.P ) In fact, unremitting cases of ill-treatment and torture occurred while in this type of confinement are being constantly reported. We enclose a list of detainees that have reported having been subjected to acts of torture, from April 1993 to May 1997, (Appendix 2. ) in which it can be clearly seen that it is gernerally during this period of isolation from lawyers, doctors and family members that individuals are tortured. In our organization we have at least clear than there were 351 cases of tortures in this period, and from them 242 were under regime of icommunicado detention and the other 108 ordinary detentions. In 202 cases under incommunicado detention gave evidence denouncing befor the Audiencia Nacional´ s Judge. In 140 cases these denounces are reported before the Ordinary Judicial Authority. 5 persons do not report the denounces because of frighten.
The Spanish Law of Criminal Procedure enacts incommunicado detention as follows:
520th Art. bis.
1. Any individual detained as suspect of participating in any of the offences mentioned in the 384th bis Art. will be put before a magistrate within 72 hours following his detention. However, this period will be subject to an extention for any necessary investigation to be carried out, up to a maximum of a further 48 hours, provided that the request for it is issued within the first 24 hours of his detention and it is in turn authorised by a pertinent magistrate in that same period of time. Either the denial or authorisation of the request will be decided upon a grounded resolution.
2. Once detained as suspect of having committed any of the afore mentioned offences, it will be possible to request the magistrate in charge to decree his incommunicado confinement, and this, will have to be decided within 24 hours following solicitation, From the moment the incommunicado detention is requested, the detainee will remain isolated though this will in no case affect his right of defence as enacted in the 520th and 527th Arts. until the magistrate issues the requested resolution.
3. During detention, the magistrate will, at all times, have the legal authority to be informed, either personally or by delegating to a District law cout magistrate where the detainee is kept , the actual condition of the detainee.
527th Art.
The detainee, while kept incommunicado, will be deprived of the rights established in present chapter , save for those enacted by the 520th Art. with the following alterations:
a) In all cases the detainee will have an officially appointed lawyer.
b) He will no enjoy the right to communicate at all , as established in section d) No. 2. ( Sect. D - Grants the right to have the detention as well as the place where he is being kept at all times communicated to a relative or other person of the detainee’s choice.
c) He will also be deprived of his right to have an interview with his lawyer as established in section c, No. 6.
The regulation of the incommunicado detention is based on the 1978 Spanish Constitution, whose Chapter V, 55th Art. sets the rule on the limitations of fundamental rights in exeptional cases. It is regarded as special legislation by the United Nations Committee for Human Rights in its document CCPR/79/Add. 61, dated 03.04.96, which in its section 12 underlines as a reason of concern "...the permanent basis on which an exceptional item of special legislation is being kept in force.." and also states that " the Committee highlights the fact that these clauses do not at all fit in the 9th and 14th Arts. of the Agreements".
Back in 1990, on examining the report No. 3 released by the Spanihs State, ( Document CCPR/SR. 1019, page 2. ) The CAT noticed with concern that the 55th Art. of the Spanish Constitution enacts the withdrawal of certain rights and liberties in the event of a state of emergency or siege and so does it foresee the withdrawal of certain rights to individuals in cases involving certain types of offences. The 4th Art. of the Agreements does permit to withhold the obligation affecting certain rights, but it does so in deed in strictly defined conditions. Yet, section 2 of the 55th Art. of the Spanish Constitution does not absolutely mention the necessarily transitory and exceptional nature of this deprival of fundamental rights and liberties in cases of "terrorism", suspension that seems then governed by common law. This fact is very distressing in so much as it brings about a sort of permanent state of emergency for people who fall in this particular category".
But as a matter of fact, the Spanish State does not seem to have any intention to modify this item of legislation despite the increasing number of evident cases of torture that are constantly being reported, which take place mainly during incommunicado detentions. This is the reason why we deem it absolutely necessary as a starting measure to discontinue incommunicado detentions and the restriction of rights and liberties implied in it, since it clearly creates a propitious space for impunity of possible abuses of human rights.
As we can see in the list of detainees who have reported diverse abuses and torture from April 1993 to May 1997 (see Appendix 2.) there are also cases of torture reported in communicado detentions, therefore, we should like to put forward the following recommendations:
(1) To discontinue the incommunicado detention policy
(2) That the place and time of all taking of statements as well as of the full names of the persons attending them should be kept in a record, and that this should be made available to the parts concerned.
(3) Recognise the right of family members, doctors, and lawyers to have a prompt and periodical access to detainees.
These measures had already been recommended in his 1993 report by the Special Rapporteur Against Torture, Mr. Peter Kooijmans.
JUDICIAL MEASURES
We have seen that the 520th bis Art. of the Law of Criminal Procedure appoints certain judicial control : ( Sections A, B and C )
A- Extention of a 48 hour period authorised by a magistrate decided upon a grounded resolution. ( 520th bis 1. )
B- It will be possible to request from the magistrate the incommunicado detention for the detainee through a grounded resolution.
This juridical control is regarded to be highly deficient by international organism
The CAT commented in its 2nd periodical report, April 1994, that ".... According to what it can be inferred from the information provided to them by the Spanish authorities, the Spanish Law Enforment Agencies seem to be soliciting the authorisations for the incommunicado detention of the detainees suspected of political offences (terrorism) systematically, and that the pertinent magistrates systematically grant such petitions. ( CAT Report No.2, paragraph 62 ) The reasons for a request and granting of the incommunicado detentions should be substantiated but "...it seems that the reasons adduced by the magistrates in order to grant authorisations tend to be weak and stereotyped and they grant them for the maximum period possible."
Since authorisations for incommunicado detentions requested by the Law Enforcement Agencies ".. are systematically granted by the magistrates.." ( CAT Report 2, paragraph 62 ) and no revisions are made to them in any case, it could be considered to be an annulment of the preceptive judicial control concerning incommunicado detentions, as well as the exemption of the period of confinement. "... incommunicado detention, which is in fact granted automatically presents deficiencies in the juridical control ". ( Comments by AI in its 4th Periodical Report - CCPR/C95/Add. 1.)
The Spanish Goverment in response to the CAT categorically denies such assertion, paradoxically providing it with the following data:
* In 1994, 105 people were applied the incommunicado detention policy..out of 119 people detained suspected of "terrorism".
* In 1995 , and for the same reason, it was applied to 129 people out of 133 detainees.
These data irrefutably corroborates that it is de facto a systematically applied policy.
Amnesty International corroborates this affirmation in it's comments to the Spanish Government’s 4th report of April 1996: "...After a random research of petitions for extension of the detention period ... The only reason to justify the incomminicado detention that is usually adduced in these petitions is the reference to presumed links between ETA and the detainee, with no more arguments or additional evidence. The extension of the incommunicado detention period is only reasoned with the use of phrases such as:"...for considering it necessary for the total clarification of the criminal acts in which the detainee/ in solitary confinement could be involved.".
It is difficult to understand, continues the report of AI, how can a judge conclude a grounded argument about a decision of such significance on the grounds of an information of these characteristics. However, regardless of what law provides and as far as AI has achieved to know, these petitions are invarAIbly approved by means of legal red tape such as "taking into account that the extension of detention has been requested within the maximum legal period and the reasons and the necesity of the measure above mentioned in order to complete the investigation of the facts, it is considered justified..."
This means that the extension of incommunicado detention is granted, in fact, automatically, and it suggests deficiencies in the judicAIl control.". This is literally, the conclusion AI draws.
This situation has not changed since at present, both incommunicado detention and extension of detention up to 5 days, keep being systematically granted without substantall motivation. C-520 bis 3-authorizes the judge to request information or to know about the detainee's situation all the time.
As regards the judges, CPT recommends them that in cases of incommunicado detention they exercise their chance to see the detainee or request direct information from them (Art. 520 bis, 3. of the Code of Criminal Procedure .) CPT considers necessary that regular visits,and not announced by the Judge or the prosecutor to the place where the detainees are,kept could significantly contribute to the prevention of ill-treatment. In any case, and with the information obtained in the second periodical visit, it would seem obvious that these visits seldom occur.(Report.II, paragraph.72 and 73). Also confirmed by AI on its comments to the fourth periodical report(CCPR/C/79/Add.1)page 13, paragraph 2.
We must reiterate the maintenance of this situation, except for few exceptional cases.
C-Habeas Corpus. Factual Inapplicability:
As for the judicial means of defense to face the arbitrariness in cases of imprisonment, such as the Habeas Corpus, it never upholds in cases of incommunicado, "... in view that the situation is legal, and being detained incommunicado in application of article 520 bis2. of the Criminal Procedure Code and in compliance with the report issued by the Public Prosecutor, it is clear that the petition cannot be allowed.". On the dismiss of the Habeas Corpus in the case of incommunicado detention of Josu Arkauz.(January 14, 1997). We enclose in APPENDIX n.3 other examples of systematic denial in cases of incommunicado(we ask you to take note of the identical literality of all of them), even when there is serious evidence of tortures.
In the comments of AI on the Fourth Periodical Report -CCPR/C/95/Add.1, it is affirmed that"... it is evident that according to what Article 2 of the Act of Parliament provides, the difficulty for a petition of Habeas Corpus procedure to be put into effect in the time provided is great. This is especially the case of situations in which a person is arrested in a province and applied incommunicado. In a given moment, the detainee is transferred to Madrid to appear before the corresponding court of the National Criminal Court. Article 2 of the General Law states that every petition of Habeas Corpus should be accepted by the Court of Madrid if the person is imprisoned in application of the Antiterrorist Legislation . In most cases, the lawyers of the said person are not in Madrid and as the detainee is incommunicado, the whereabouts of his lawyers will be unknown to him and he will not be able to contact them. The difficulties for a petition of this type to succeed are evident"
Due to the legal impediment to know even if the person is arrested, lawyers choose to present a Habeas Corpus procedure in the natural (local) Courts. These send it automatically to the National Criminal Court, which always gives a negative resolution, and always with the same "motivations" that we enclose in the APPENDIX. We see, therefore, that it's safeguard value is annulled de facto.
ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES
A-RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CPT
On this point we refer to the recommendations made by the CPT, whose degree of fulfillment the Spanish government self-congratulates of.
On the second periodical report, the CPT shows its concern for incommunicado detentions and makes some recommendations as safeguard against the ill-treatment of the detainees:
-Recommendation to reduce to 48 hours the maximum period to give notice of the detention and the whereabouts of the detainee to relatives or others with legitimateinterest (Report II, paragraph.60)
The Spanish government justifies the maintenance of the current situation in the constitutional legality which establishes a maximum of 72 hours. (Constitution Art. 55.2). As a general rule, not even when this period concludes, are relatives informed of the detention, nor whether it is going to be extended, which they infer from the passage of time .
-Recommendation that the detainee has access to a duty solicitor from the very moment of the detention(there is evidence of police interrogation without the presence of a lawyer), including the right to contact and be visited by the lawyer, in both cases, guaranteeing confidentiality.
As we have mentioned, this is never fulfilled. The officially appointed lawyer only sees the detainee(he is never allowed to interview with him)during the police statement, just before the period of detention is concluded. He is not allowed to talk while he makes statement.
-Recommendations to guarantee the possibility of medical examination without police presence.
-Recommendation that the result of the examination is formally written down and notified to the detainee. The detainee never has knowledge of the notes the forensic surgeon takes during the examination.
-Recommendations to explicitly inform the detainees of their possibility to be examined by a second doctor. On the same paragraph the CPT states that the Examining Magistrate n.5(judge Garzón) declares that he would have no inconvenience to accept that a doctor chosen by the detainee examines him/her as long as it is done in presence of the forensic surgeon. We see that Mr. Garzón does not keep his word in the case of the handing over of Josu Arkauz, ".. it is allowed that the doctor appointed by the family of Jesus Archaize Arana meets the detainee, due to his situation of incommunicado but that does not imply that the doctor cannot have an interview with the forensic surgeon..." (Court order of January 15, 1997). In spite of this,before the statement before the judge, he authorized the presence of the doctor appointed by the family, during the forensic expert testimony of the three doctors attached to the National High Court.
-Recommendation made in the report I paragraph 69 to the Law Enforcement Agencies to write a code of conduct for interrogations. (Rep II, 69 and 70),and after confirming that it has not been fulfilled, it stresses on it's necessity because the CPT is aware of the numerous pleadings of ill-treatment as well as of the habitual practice "...(particularly in cases of terrorism)they are interrogated for long periods, and their formal statements are made during the night." In view of this suggestion, the Spanish State declares its intention to fulfill the recommendation, but we have no knowledge about it.
-They ask them to reconsider the recommendation of the CPT on its report I to record electronically the interrogations by the police officers because " it would not only be a safeguard for the detainee, but it would also serve the legitimate interests of the Law Enforcement Agencies. In particular, it would supply them with a complete and authentic register of the interrogation process, which would greatly facilitate the investigation of ill-treatment reports and the real determination of guilt." - Budgetary problems are argued for its non- installation.
None of these recommendations of preventive efficacy has been fulfilled.
B - FORENSIC REPORTS
In what refers to the administrative measures, although its judicial nature might be discussed, we think it necessary to inform to the CAT about the role of the forensic surgeons. They have great significance for the prevention and evidence of possible cases of torture because of their privileged position. They are practically the only contact of the detainee incommunicado, apart from the officers of the Law Enforcements Agencies. The judges base their appreciation of possible tortures or ill-treatment almost exclusively on the grounds of the reports of forensic surgeons(we have already seen that they take no notice of the torture allegation done before the judge)
The CPT assures on its report III (June 94) that "the forensic surgeon saw recent signs in some cases, but he thought that they might as well have been produced by causes other than ill-treatment" (Report III. Paragraph 19)
"... in the context of this report, some comments must be made in relation to the role forensic surgeons play." (Report III paragraph.36).
On the first report, they already show some concern about possible deficiencies in medical examinations, and on paragraph 57, in cases of incommunicado, they recommend that:
-the detainee, if he/she requires so, be examined by the forensic surgeon as well as by another doctor chosen from a list suggested by the corresponding doctor association(in cases of incommunicado)
-every medical examination is done without being listened to, and preferably, out of the sight of officers.
-the results of the examination are communicated to the detainee.
The members of the CPT find in their visits "ad hoc" some "lacks" in the performance of the forensic surgeons: "subsequent medical examinations in the prison of Madrid I, revealed in the case of 2 people arrested between 2 and 7 June 1994, injuries that had not been observed by the forensic surgeon. In another case, they observed traces that were bigger than the ones recorded by the forensic surgeon, and in a fourth case, the discrepancy between the size of the injuries could have been partly, consequence of the few resources available for the forensic surgeon.(Report.III paragraph.38)
On the other hand, AI, on it's Comments on the 4th periodical report of the Spanish government includes the following: In April 1995, 2 officers of the National Police Force were sentenced for failing to prevent the use of torture(it had not been possible to identify the ones that had in fact carried out these tortures, so the ones who registered the statement were sentenced)precisely, electric discharges on Iker Eguskizaga, who had been arrested in November 1983. In the verdict of guilty, the Court detailed the illegal and unjustified delays of the authorities in the investigation of the facts, which the court sentenced. However, later the court considered that those delays constituted mitigating circumstances for both the accused. In the sentence, the report of the forensic surgeon attached to the case was described as " a clear example of what a medical report must not be". (of de Comments of AI to the 4th periodical report) (CCPR/C/79/Add.1page 6).
On paragraph 39 of the report III, the CPT recommends that the forensic reports follow a more developed pattern, in which the following points are included:
i) Statements made by the detainee, that are relevant for the medical examination (including the description of the examined person, his/her state of health and any allegation of ill-treatment).
ii) Objective medical signs based on an exhaustive medical examination.
iii) The conclusions of the doctor, considering i) and ii).
It also considers necessary to mention that:"... due to the pressures that can be put on a detainee, forensic surgeons should not accept at first sight his/her statements assuring that they have been well-treated," and it adds that "especial attention should be paid to the mental state of the detainee -and more especially to changes of that state during the custody period- when his/her situation is examined.
As you may notice, we dare to assure that although the examination of forensic surgeons must be the bailer of the physical and psychological integrity of the detained, their reports actually, warrant that every accusation of torture is shelved.
It is very significant that the CPT needs to recommend some minimum requirements for the reports. Forensic surgeons try to explain the physical injuries of the detainee as caused by different motivations other than ill-treatment, even if the descriptions of tortures of the detainee are compatible with the injuries.
The CPT quotes the case of María Encarnación Martinez,(report II, par.22) which on the bruises she presented, the forensic report of June 7, 1994 reports that:"...they could be caused by smashing against the corner of a table..."
This case is shelved.
Even if the Judge of the National Criminal Court briefs on possible tortures to the natural judge, once the testimony of the forensic surgeon is requested, to inform to the examining magistrate, the former always tends to exclude the hypothesis of the ill-treatment or arbitrary violence, always looking for other causes, as we have previously mentioned. As consequence of all this, the denounces are dismissed and afterwards shelved, because no other evidence is heard(CPT RepII par22).
 |
 |