territory for conspiring with others to commit one or more offences, as well as for illegally bearing weapons, keeping explosives and munitions and using false administrative documents. That conviction automatically gave rise to the possibility of deportation. 9.2 The State party indicates that the real risks mentioned by the author were evaluated by the national authorities prior to implementation of the deportation procedure, according to the criteria defined in article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention. 9.3 Two main points led the administration to believe that there was nothing to prevent implementation of the deportation measure. Firstly, the specialized bodies responsible for determining eligibility for political refugee status had rejected the author's application in 1981, feeling that the fears of persecution alleged by him were unfounded. Secondly, in view of the commitments made by Spain regarding the protection of fundamental freedoms, the French Government, although certainly not unaware that the person concerned might be subject to criminal prosecution in that country, could legitimately feel that there were no substantial grounds for believing that the author was in danger of being tortured. The legitimacy of that position was confirmed by the European Commission of Human Rights, which, in its inadmissibility decisions of 1998 in two cases where the points of fact and law were perfectly comparable, considered that the French Government had no substantial grounds for believing that the complainants would be subjected to torture in Spain. The Commission noted that there was a presumption favourable to that country concerning respect for human rights, in particular on account of its accession to the European Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocol thereto. It also made reference to the report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, which stated that torture could not be regarded as common practice in Spain. 9.4 The State party also indicates that, before being taken to the border, Mr. Arkauz underwent a medical examination, which concluded that he was in a fit state to be deported, and that after his arrest and detention by the Spanish authorities he was again seen by a doctor. Furthermore, the procedure initiated in Spain was conducted in accordance with the instructions of the examining magistrate who had issued international arrest warrants and authorized the transfer of Mr. Arkauz to Civil Guard Headquarters in Madrid, so that he could be heard in the presence of a lawyer. 9.5 If the author had indeed been the victim of acts contrary to article 3 of the Convention, a supposition which might be verified by the proceedings under way in Spain, those acts could only be regarded as having been committed by isolated individuals in breach of the guidelines laid down by the Spanish State. As such, they could not have been foreseen and the French Government cannot be blamed for having neither suspected nor prevented such an outcome. 9.6 For all the above reasons, no failure to comply with the provisions of article 3 of the Convention could be deemed to have been established. 9.7 As to the claim of a violation of article 16 of the Convention, the State party submits that the author cannot effectively invoke the provisions set forth in that article, which are inapplicable because the territory in which the violations of article 3 of the Convention were allegedly committed is not under the jurisdiction of the French State. Comments by the author 10.1 The author reiterates that there were substantial grounds for believing that he would be in personal danger of being subjected to torture if he was deported to Spain. The existence of such a danger was confirmed by the following facts: the author and his family had been the targets of threats and harassment; the 85