CAT/C/23/D/63/1997 page 6 had expressed their concern at the use of torture and ill-treatment in Spain and at the Spanish legislation enabling persons suspected of belonging to or collaborating with armed groups to be held incommunicado for five days, as well as regarding the impunity apparently enjoyed by the perpetrators of acts of torture. The combination of these various factors (existence of an administrative practice, serious deficiencies in the protection of persons deprived of their liberty and lack of punishment for officials employing torture) provided substantial grounds for believing that the author was in real danger of being subjected to torture. Lastly, he expressed his fears regarding the conditions of detention to which he would be submitted if he was imprisoned in Spain. 3.6 In his communication of 16 December 1996 the author also stated that during his transfer to the border there was a risk that he would be subjected to ill-treatment contrary to article 16 of the Convention, since the police could use force and he would be completely isolated from his family and counsel. 3.7 In his letter of 17 March 1997, the author reiterates that there was a violation by the State party of articles 3 and 16 of the Convention and, subsidiarily, of articles 2 and 22. In seeking to justify his surrender to the Spanish security forces, France is said to have violated article 2 of the Convention. France reportedly sought to justify that action on the basis of necessary solidarity between European States and cooperation against terrorism. However, neither the situation of acute conflict prevailing in the Basque country, nor solidarity between European States, nor the fight against terrorism can justify the practice of torture by the Spanish security forces. 3.8 The author further submits that, by proceeding with his deportation and surrendering him to the Spanish security forces, despite the Committee’s request not to expel him, the State party violated article 22 of the Convention because the individual remedy provided for by that article was rendered inoperative. He believes that the State party’s attitude under those circumstances amounts to a denial of the binding nature of the Convention. 3.9 The author also criticizes the French authorities for the late notification of the deportation order and its immediate execution, the sole purpose of which, in his view, was to deprive him of any contact with his family and counsel, to prevent him from effectively preparing his defence and to place him at a psychological disadvantage. He submits that it was consequently impossible in practice for him to enter any appeal between the time of notification of the deportation order and its immediate execution. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 In a reply dated 31 October 1997, the State party disputes the admissibility of the communication. It indicates that on 13 January 1997, the day on which the deportation order was issued and carried out, it had not known of the Committee’s request for a stay of execution, which was received on 14 January 1997, and it therefore could not have taken it into consideration. It adds that the immediate and rapid expulsion was necessary for reasons of public order.