The State party’s observations on the merits and author’s comments: 7.1 By a communication of 29 November 1994, the State party submits that the case of Mr. Parot was brought to the attention of the Special Rapporteur on Torture of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, who addressed a request for information to the State party. The State party indicates that, after it had provided information, the case was closed and no reference to the case was made by the Special Rapporteur in his report to the Commission on Human Rights. 7.2 The State party further contends that the communication submitted to the Committee on behalf of Mr. Parot is extremely vague. It notes that no details are provided about the alleged complaint before the judge in Alcalá-de-Henares, and it expresses its perplexity that the Committee, in those circumstances, has declared the communication admissible. In this context, it recalls that Mr. Parot is "one of the greatest criminals of the century", that he was the leader of a commando of the ETA, and that his false allegations have received disproportionate attention, to the benefit of the ETA and in discrimination of other citizens. 7.3 As to the merits of the communication, the State party indicates that Mr. Parot has shown to be very familiar with the justice system in Spain, since he has filed numerous complaints about prison conditions, all of which have been dealt with, but that he never filed a formal complaint about ill treatment or torture. The State party maintains that the members of the ETA are under instruction systematically to claim hat they have been subjected to torture and ill treatment. The State party adds that the judge at the preliminary inquiry did not observe any injuries requiring investigation. The State party claims that, if the allegations would have been true, Parot’s lawyer would certainly have requested the judge to have this evidence referred to the competent judge for investigation. In this context, the State party points out that Parot’s lawyers never submitted any complaint of maltreatment in detention. Moreover, the State party adds that one of Parot’s lawyers, on 22 June 1990, did file a complaint about Parot having been insulted and beaten during transport within Madrid. The State party argues that it is inconsistent, if the allegations were true, to file an official complaint of one incident and not to file a complaint of torture and maltreatment upon arrest. 7.4 The State party further states that Mr. Parot was examined by a medical doctor on a number of occasions during his detention. It is submitted that the first medical examination took place at a quarter past midnight on 3 April 1990, and that only two minor bruises were found, and that Mr. Parot stated that he had not been subjected to ill treatment. The second examination took place also on 3 April 1990, after his arrival in Madrid, and again on 5, 6 and 7 April 1990. The State party transmits copies of the medical reports and concludes that no signs of ill treatment were recorded. 7.5 The State party points out that, during this period, Mr. Parot never complained about torture or maltreatment in any of the statements he made. The State party points out that, while making these statements, Mr. Parot was at all times in the presence of his State-appointed lawyer. The State party encloses a declaration made by a lawyer who represented Parot during the first days of his detention, stating that he was not aware of any ill treatment or torture having been inflicted on Parot and that, on the contrary, Parot appeared to be in good health and made his statements freely. -65-