470. During the time covered by the present report (ninth and tenth sessions) the Committee had four communications before it for consideration (Nos. 6/1990, 7/1990, 8/1991 and 10/1993). 471. In order to expedite the examination of communications, the Committee at its ninth session appointed two of its members as Rapporteurs responsible for communications Nos. 6/1990, 7/1990 and 8/1991. 472. At its ninth and tenth sessions, the Committee continued consideration of communication No. 8/1991, which was declared admissible at the eighth session. Pursuant to rule 110 of the rules of procedure, the Committee requested the State party to provide more information and to appoint a medical specialist to examine an injury, which according to the author has been caused by torture. 473. At its ninth session, the Committee received a request from the author of communication No. 6/1990 (I.U.P. v. Spain, declared inadmissible at the Committee’s seventh session) to reopen consideration of the communication, since the application of domestic remedies had been unreasonably prolonged. Having requested and received comments from the State party, the Committee decided at its tenth session to request more information from the alleged victim. 474. Direct contact with the author of communication No. 7/1990 remained difficult, since letters addressed to him were routinely returned by the postal authorities. In February 1993, the Committee was informed that the author had been arrested anew. Upon the request of the Special Rapporteur, the State party provided information about the author’s state of health and about his arrest, trial and sentencing. During its tenth session, the Committee decided to request more detailed information from the State party. 475. Communication No. 10/1993 was registered by the Committee during its tenth session. Under rule 108 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, the State party was requested to furnish information or observations relevant to the question of admissibility of the communication. -75-