Office of Justice to extradite the complainant. In addition to the reasons stated in his motion of 7 June 2002, he asserted that the Spanish extradition request lacked the necessary precision required by article 14, paragraph 2, of the European Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (1959)e since it was essentially based on the arrest warrant of 1994 and failed to take into account the results of the subsequent criminal proceedings in Germany as well as in Spain. In particular, it did not clarify that the apartment at Padilla Street was rented by Mr. Ramos Vega exclusively, that the latter had been acquitted of the charges relating to the storage of firearms and possession of explosives by the Audiencia Nacional, and that the powder found in the apartment at Aragón Street was lead sulphide which could not be used for the production of explosives. The facts established in the extradition request were, therefore, to be disregarded; the request itself was abusive and had to be rejected. With respect to article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, counsel submitted that, although in theory the complainant enjoyed consular protection by Germany and could already engage the services of a lawyer of her choice in Spain prior to her extradition, these rights could in practice only be exercised after incommunicado detention had ended. Regarding article 15 of the Convention, counsel alleged that the Spanish extradition request failed to indicate on which additional evidence the charges against the complainant had been based. Insofar as the evidence was found indirectly through Mr. San Epifanio’s testimony, counsel claims that the theory of the “tainted fruits of the poisonous tree” precludes the use of such evidence by the Swiss courts. 2.10By letter of 20 September 2002, the Federal Office of Justice asked the Federal Tribunal to dismiss the complainant’s legal action. Counsel responded to this motion by letter, dated 15 October 2002, in which he maintained and further explained his arguments. 2.11The Swiss Section of Amnesty International sent an amicus curiae brief, dated 2 October 2002, to the Federal Tribunal on behalf of the complainant, stating that Spanish legislation provided for the possibility of keeping persons suspected of terrorist offences in incommunicado detention for a period of up to five days during which they could only be visited by a legal aid lawyer, and that such detention increased the risk of torture and maltreatment. Although torture was not systematically inflicted by the National Police or the Civil Guard numerous instances of maltreatment of ETA suspects still occurred, including sexual assaults, including rape, blows to the head, putting plastic bags over the head (“la bolsa”), deprivation of sleep, electric shocks, threats of execution, etc. Amnesty International considered it indispensable for the State party to make the complainant’s extradition to Spain subject to the following assurances: (a) that under no circumstances should the complainant be handed over to the Civil Guard or the National Police, but that she be placed directly under the authority of the Audiencia Nacional in Madrid; (b) that the complainant be granted direct and unlimited access to a lawyer of her choice; and (c) that she be brought before a judge as soon as possible following her extradition to Spain. 2.12By judgement of 21 October 2002, the Federal Tribunal dismissed the complainant’s action, upholding the decision of the Federal Office of Justice to grant the Spanish extradition request. The Tribunal based itself on the facts set out in the extradition request and concluded that the complainant was punishable under Swiss law (either as a participant in or as a supporter of a terrorist organization pursuing the objective to commit politically motivated crimes of violence) as well as under Spanish law. The Tribunal did not pronounce itself on the complainant’s challenges as to the facts contained in the extradition request, ruling that questions of facts and evidence were for the Spanish courts to decide. Moreover, since ETA was not merely a group struggling for political power by employing legitimate means, the Tribunal did not consider the complainant’s participation in or her support of ETA a political offence within the meaning of article 3 of the European Convention on Extradition. The fact that criminal proceedings against the complainant had been closed by the Berlin public prosecutor’s office for lack of a reasonable suspicion of an offence did not, in the Tribunal’s opinion, bar the Swiss authorities from extraditing her to Spain because the decision to close proceedings was not based on material grounds and had been taken by a third State.f With respect to the alleged risk of torture following the complainant’s extradition to Spain, the Tribunal held that Spain, being a democratic State and a member of the pertinent regional and universal human rights conventions, could not be presumed systematically to practise torture. Moreover, the Tribunal rejected the claim that the charges against the complainant were primarily based on testimony extracted by torture, in the absence of any supporting evidence.g 2.13According to counsel’s information, the complainant was extradited to Spain after the Committee, on 6 January 2003, decided to withdraw its request for interim measures. The complaint 3.1Counsel claims that following an extradition to Spain, the complainant would be at risk of being tortured during the allowable maximum of five days of incommunicado detention and that Switzerland would, therefore, be violating article 3 of the Convention if she were extradited to Spain. In substantiation of this claim, counsel refers to several reportsh on instances of torture inflicted on suspected members or supporters of ETA as well as to the Committee’s views on communication No. 63/1997 (Josu Arkauz Arana v. France)i concerning the extradition of an ETA suspect from France to Spain, where the Committee stated that “notwithstanding the legal guarantees as to the conditions under which it could be imposed, there were cases of prolonged detention incommunicado, when the detainee could not receive the assistance of a lawyer of his choice, which seemed to facilitate the practice of torture”.j Counsel also submits that, in the absence of guarantees from the Spanish authorities, the author could not, in practice, obtain access to a lawyer of her choice and to consular protection by Germany until after incommunicado detention had ended. Furthermore, counsel argues that the numerous reports on cases of torture and maltreatment in Spanish prisons indicated a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights, a finding which was reinforced by the fact that ETA suspects had been killed in the past by death squads (Grupos Antiterroristas de Liberación/GAL) linked to the former Spanish Government. In counsel’s view, the complainant’s personal risk of being tortured was increased by the fact that the Spanish extradition request had been based on false charges, which indicated that Spain was unwilling to grant the complainant a fair trial. In the absence of any clear evidence against the complainant, it was not excluded that Spanish police would try to extract a confession by torture. 3.2Counsel claims that by granting the Spanish extradition request, which exclusively relied on Felipe San Epifanio’s testimony, extracted by torture, and on the evidence found on the basis of this testimony in the apartment at Padilla Street, the State party violated article 15 of the Convention. Counsel argues that the use in extradition proceedings of evidence obtained as a result of torture runs counter to the spirit of the Convention since it provides the authorities of the requesting State with an incentive to