the first indictment division of the Paris Court of Appeal which, on 21 June 2000, ruled partiallye in favour of extradition in respect of the acts described by Spain as 19 attempted terrorist murders. 2.9The complainant emphasizes that the request for extradition did not contain a copy of the statement that Mr. Azurmendi made on 25 March 1998 to the examining magistrate of the National High Court. In that regard, the complainant’s counsel argued before the indictment division of the Paris Court of Appeal that it was unacceptable that, since the charges carried very severe prison terms, the requesting State had not mentioned the statement in which Mr. Azurmendi retracted everything that he had said and also stated that he did not know the complainant. 2.10Counsel also argued: “[T]he medical examinations carried out while Mr. Azurmendi was in custody and was being transported to the hospital casualty department, the statements made on 25 March 1998, the official medical observations recorded on his arrival at Madrid prison, the medical report provided on 18 October 1998, the complaint lodged and the testimony of certain persons detained the same day show that he was subjected to ill treatment while being questioned by the Civil Guard. Such treatment, apart from being clearly in violation of domestic instruments in any State governed by the rule of law, is further prohibited by the international conventions that France has ratified, in particular by article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that no one shall be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Still more specifically, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment provides (art. 15) that: ‘Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.’ In this case, the statements made by Mr. Azurmendi, who is established to have been subjected to ill treatment while held in custody, clearly cannot serve as a legal basis for proceedings against [P.E.].” 2.11The indictment division of the Paris Court of Appeal replied as follows in its decision of 21 June 2000: “In view of the fact that it is not the task of the court to find whether the factual elements cited by the requesting authority have been proven, but to consider whether those elements constitute a criminal offence in the requesting State and in the requested State; … in view of the fact that, while it is true that Azurmendi implicated [P.E.], he did not do so as a result of violence but, according to the evidence supplied by the requesting State, in the Civil Guard station, in the presence of a lawyer; in view of the fact that the court cannot seek to secure the documents forming part of the Spanish proceedings in order to substitute itself for the authorities of the requesting State in their analysis; it is sufficient that, as in the present case, the court should possess sufficiently precise information to enable it to determine the existence of suspicions so as to allow it to apply the principle of dual criminality.” 2.12On 17 May 2000, the German section of Action of Christians for the Abolition of Torture (ACAT) wrote to the Government of France requesting it not to extradite the complainant to Spain. On 23 May 2000, many organizations, associations and public figures sent an open letter to the French authorities along the same lines. 2.13On 29 September 2000, the Government of France issued a decree granting extradition of the complainant to the Spanish authorities. On 3 January 2001, the complainant appealed against the decree to the Council of State. In a statement of case presented to the Council of State, counsel for the complainant reiterated the arguments presented to the indictment division, adding: “[I]n response to the argument concerning a breach of French public order, the [French] Minister [of Justice] does not dispute any of the circumstances described by the plaintiff, in particular: “–The fact that Mr. Azurmendi’s statements made while being questioned by the Civil Guard authorities, which, inter alia, implicated Ms. [P.E.], were subsequently retracted before the examining magistrate; “–That Mr. Azurmendi was transported to casualty at the end of his period in custody because he had been subjected to ill-treatment during questioning by the Civil Guard. “According to the administration’s statement of case, Mr. Azurmendi’s statements did not constitute a breach of French public order because they were taken freely in the presence of a lawyer from the Madrid bar. In fact, there is nothing to confirm that this was the case, or even that a lawyer was continuously present while he was held in custody, from the beginning to the end of the questioning. “So that, while a lawyer from the Madrid bar may have assisted the person concerned at some time while he was being held in custody, this circumstance in no way rules out the possibility that the suspicions against the plaintiff were gathered in a manner contrary to French public order.” The Council of State rejected this appeal by a decision dated 7 November 2001. The complainant was handed over to the Spanish authorities on the same day. The complaint 3.1The complainant considers that her extradition to Spain constitutes a violation of article 15 of the Convention insofar as the charges brought against her by the Spanish authorities were based on statements made as a result of torture.3.2Article 15 of the Convention is one of the corollaries of the absolute prohibition of torture on which the Convention against Torture is based. The first part of the article is designed to deprive the practice of torture of any value when inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him/her or a third person information or a confession. In that context, statements obtained as a result of torture must be declared absolutely null. 3.3This provision is applicable to any court or non-court proceedings, particularly penal or administrative proceedings. Hence it is applicable in this case to extradition proceedings.