CAT/C/30/D/219/2002 page 5 incommunicado detention following her extradition to Spain, because she could already engage the services of a lawyer in Spain prior to her extradition and because she enjoyed diplomatic protection by Germany; and (5) that even if Mr. San Epifanio’s testimony had been extracted by torture, this was not the only evidence on which the charges against the complainant had been based. 2.9 On 8 September 2002, counsel lodged an administrative court action with the Federal Tribunal against the decision of the Federal Office of Justice to extradite the complainant. In addition to the reasons stated in his motion of 7 June 2002, he criticized that the Spanish extradition request lacked the necessary precision required by article 14, paragraph 2, of the European Convention of Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (1959)5 since it was essentially based on the arrest warrant of 1994 and failed to take into account the results of the subsequent criminal proceedings in Germany as well as in Spain. In particular, it did not clarify that the apartment at calle Padilla was rented by Mr. Ramos Vega exclusively, that the latter had been acquitted of the charges relating to the storage of firearms and possession of explosives by the Audiencia Nacional, and that the powder found in the apartment at calle Aragon was lead sulphide which could not be used for the production of explosives. The facts established in the extradition request were, therefore, to be disregarded; the request itself was abusive and had to be rejected. With respect to article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, counsel submitted that, although in theory the complainant enjoyed diplomatic protection by Germany and could already engage the services of a lawyer of her choice in Spain prior to her extradition, these rights could in practice only be exercised after incommunicado detention had ended. Regarding article 15 of the Convention, counsel criticized that the Spanish extradition request failed to indicate on which additional evidence the charges against the complainant had been based. Insofar as the evidence was found indirectly through Mr. San Epifanio’s testimony, counsel claims that the theory of the “tainted fruits of the poisonous tree” precludes the use of such evidence by the Swiss courts. 2.10 By letter of 20 September 2002, the Federal Office of Justice asked the Federal Tribunal to dismiss the complainant’s legal action. Counsel responded to this motion by letter, dated 15 October 2002, in which he maintained and further explained his arguments. 2.11 The Swiss section of Amnesty International sent an amicus curiae brief, dated 2 October 2002, on behalf of the complainant to the Federal Tribunal, stating that Spanish legislation provided for the possibility of keeping suspects of terrorist offences in incommunicado detention for a period of up to five days during which they could only be visited by a legal aid lawyer, and that such detention increased the risk of torture and maltreatment. Although torture was not systematically inflicted by the Policía Nacional or the Guardia Civil, instances of massive maltreatment of ETA suspects still occurred, including sexual assaults, rape, blows to the head, putting plastic bags over the head (“la bolsa”), deprivation of sleep, electric shocks, threats of execution, etc. Amnesty International considered it indispensable for the State party to make the complainant’s extradition to Spain subject to the following assurances: (1) that under no circumstances the complainant should be handed over to the Guardia Civil or the Policía Nacional, but that she be placed directly under the authority of the Audiencia Nacional in Madrid; (2) that the complainant be granted direct and unlimited access to a lawyer of her choice; and (3) that she be brought before a judge as soon as possible following her extradition to Spain.