CAT/C/29/D/193/2001 page 19 whether Mr. Azurmendi’s confession was obtained in an unlawful manner. The Committee considers that only this judicial ruling should be taken into consideration, and not the simple retraction by Mr. Azurmendi of a confession which he had previously signed in the presence of counsel. 6.5 The Committee reiterates in this regard that it is for the courts of the States parties to the Convention, and not the Committee, to evaluate facts and evidence in a particular case. It is for the appellate courts of States parties to the Convention to examine the conduct of the trial, unless it can be ascertained that the manner in which the evidence was evaluated was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice, or that the trial judge had clearly violated his obligation of impartiality. 6.6 The Committee, bearing in mind that it is for the author to demonstrate that her allegations are well founded, considers that, on the basis of the facts before it, it cannot conclude that it has been established that the statements at issue were obtained as a result of torture. 6.7 Accordingly, the Committee is of the opinion that the facts before it do not enable it to establish that there has been a violation of article 15 of the Convention. Notes 1 As the complainant had been extradited to Spain on 7 November 2001, the State party was unable to comply with the Committee’s request of 5 December 2001 regarding interim measures. 2 The complainant does not specify the exact date of her arrest. 3 In this regard, the complainant stresses that her relations with her partner have always remained strictly at the personal level. 4 This is the request referred to by the State party as an “additional request” - see paragraphs 4.4 ff. 5 The State party explains in its observations (see paragraphs 4.1 ff.) why the ruling is partially in favour of extradition. 6 The complainant explains that “the very manner in which the period of custody as a whole takes place offers no guarantees that the detainee can make a statement freely, even if a court-appointed lawyer is present when “official” statements are made. According to reliable testimony from all the victims of torture and serious ill-treatment in Spain, the nature of the period in custody is as follows: “(a) Torture and ill-treatment begin from the time of arrest, including during transfer to the facilities of the Spanish security forces; “(b) During the initial hours and initial days of the period of custody, violence is used to condition the detainee so that he or she will make the statements the torturers wish; the