E/CN.4/2004/56/Add.2 page 11 32. In response to a question about the freedom of the press to discuss the question of torture, the Minister of the Interior told the Special Rapporteur that if there was a credible complaint of torture it would be discussed publicly; however, in counter-terrorism cases it was standard practice for a person who has been detained systematically to allege that he/she has been tortured. Consequently, most press agencies did not report the case as they knew the claim to be false, except for those newspapers linked to terrorism. He stressed that ETA acted not only through gunmen and bombers, but also had members in political parties, in the media and in NGOs. Certain organizations and parties had been declared illegal on the basis of their connections with ETA by a judicial decision, not by an act of the executive branch. He stated that some had used the privileges of democracy to extend their power base. In regard to the Egunkaria case, the Minister had ordered the newspaper closed because of its links to ETA and the persons connected with it arrested. He said that the journalists had been instructed by ETA to claim that they were tortured and that the allegation was false. Judicial proceedings had nevertheless been initiated. At the time of the visit no judicial decision had been taken as to the substance of this matter. 33. Non-governmental sources informed the Special Rapporteur that some lawyers assisting terrorist suspects might make allegations of torture, using the criminal system for political purposes, but emphasized that the occurrence of some false or inflated allegations did not mean that torture did not take place; each case required investigation to verify the facts. According to these sources, torture is an issue which people are uncomfortable with and it has been used for political purposes; however, it is vital that it be addressed not only in the context of counter-terrorism measures, but also in the context of racial or ethnic abuse. B. Incommunicado detention 34. As stated in section I, CCP allows for incommunicado detention for individuals suspected of having committed particularly serious offences, namely membership in or connection with an armed group or terrorists or rebels, as prescribed by article 384 bis of CCP, and in the case of other crimes committed by common accord and in an organized manner by two or more individuals. In this context, the Special Rapporteur, in line with views expressed by regional human rights courts and bodies, and resolutions adopted by the Commission on Human Rights, recalls that prolonged incommunicado detention may facilitate the perpetration of torture and could in itself amount to a form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.10 Therefore, existence and implementation of adequate legal safeguards, such as prompt judicial intervention, access to legal counsel and medical examination, the right to challenge the lawfulness of detention, and the right of relatives to be informed about the arrest and place of detention of a detainee, serve as fundamental guarantees that there will be no breach of the non-derogable right not to be subjected to torture or other forms of ill-treatment. 35. A number of interlocutors raised concerns that under the envisaged amendment to CCP (later enacted by Organic Laws 13/2003 and 15/2003), a person could be held in incommunicado detention for a total of 10 consecutive days, possibly extended to 13 days (see paragraphs 16-18 above). The Special Rapporteur met with the Secretary of State for Justice and requested further information on how the new law would alter the legal regime vis-à-vis incommunicado detention.