CAT/C/29/D/193/2001 page 8 − It is also necessary, in extradition proceedings, to determine whether torture is practised in the requesting State, and to examine the circumstances in which the statement at issue was obtained and whether statements obtained as a result of torture are customarily accepted by the courts of the requesting State. 3.5 In this case, all these criteria have been satisfied: 3.5.1 According to the complainant, it has been established beyond all reasonable doubt that Mr. Azurmendi’s statements cited as evidence in the proceedings in question were obtained as a result of torture. 3.5.2 As regards the assistance of a court-appointed lawyer while Mr. Azurmendi was being held in custody - the argument invoked by the State party to refute these allegations - the complainant emphasizes that, under Spain’s special anti-terrorist legislation, Mr. Azurmendi was arrested and held in custody incommunicado, that is, cut off from any contact with a lawyer of his choice or a close relative. This status was extended even when he appeared in court on 25 March 1998. 3.5.3 The complainant explains in this regard that the machinery for protecting persons implicated in terrorist cases and held by the Spanish security forces is well known to be inadequate: − Such persons have no access to a lawyer of their choice while in custody or even, in some cases, when appearing before the examining magistrate; − During the period of custody, the court-appointed lawyer is present only when “official” statements are made before members of the Spanish security forces; the court-appointed lawyer is never present throughout the period of custody; specifically, he does not attend all the questioning sessions.6 3.5.4 In this regard, after considering the third periodic report submitted by Spain, on 18 and 19 November 1997, the Committee against Torture made the following observations: The Committee continued to receive frequent complaints of acts of torture and ill-treatment during the period covered by the report. […] Notwithstanding the legal guarantees as to the conditions under which it can be imposed, there are cases of prolonged detention incommunicado, when the detainee cannot receive the assistance of a lawyer of his choice, which seems to facilitate the practice of torture. Most of these complaints concern torture inflicted during such periods. The Committee is also concerned about reports that although, in accordance with article 15 of the Convention, judges do not accept as incriminating evidence statements regarded as invalid because they have been obtained under duress or torture, they nevertheless accept those same statements as incriminating other co-defendants. […] Consideration should be given to eliminating instances in which extended detention incommunicado and restrictions of the rights of detainees to be assisted by a defence lawyer of their choice are authorized.