Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of. procedure, whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. The State party’s observations 4.1 The State party submits that with regard to the allegation of torture in 1984, the communication is inadmissible ratione temporis. It disputes that the alleged violation could be deemed as continuing after the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for Spain. Further, it submits that the extradition request of 16 December 1987 was based primarily on admissions made by the author before the examining magistrate in charge of the earlier case: the author had never claimed that these statements were made under duress. 5.2 With regard to the application of the Optional Protocol for Spain, the Committee recalls that it entered into force on 25 April 1985. It observes that the Optional Protocol cannot be applied retroactively and concludes that the Committee is precluded ratione temporis from examining acts said to have occurred in March 1984, unless these acts continued after the entry into force of the Optional Protocol and allegedly constituted a continued violation of the Covenant or had effects that themselves constitute a violation of the Covenant. 4.2 The State party further argues that the author has failed to exhaust domestic remedies. Since torture constitutes an offence under article 204bis of the Spanish Civil Code, the author could have denounced the alleged events before the competent civil and criminal tribunals. He could have filed such a complaint with the Spanish authorities any time after March 1984 and thereby given the Government of Spain the possibility of investigating the alleged violation. In order to satisfy the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, it was not necessary for the author to prove that he was a torture victim, but he should have at least filed a complaint. If dissatisfied with the judicial process, the author could still have had recourse to the constitutional remedy of amparo, pursuant to article 53 of the Constitution and article 43 of the Ley Orgánica de1 Poder Judicial. 5.3 The Committee has also noted, ex officio, that the author’s allegation that his confession in 1984 was obtained under duress could raise issues under article 14, paragraphs 1 and 3(g), of the Covenant. However, this alleged duress equally did not continue after the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for Spain. 5.4 Accordingly, the Committee finds that it is precluded ratione temporis from examining these allegations. 6. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) (b) This decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the author through his counsel. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 5.1 in a The communication is inadmissible; Before considering any claims contained communication, the Human Rights ____________ Communication No. 347/1988 Submitted by: S. G. (name deleted) Date of communication: 12 December 1988 Alleged victim: The author State party: France Declared inadmissible: 1 November 1991 (forty-third session)* * On the same day, the Committee declared an identical case inadmissible for the same reasons (G. B. v. France, communication No. 348/1989). The Committee subsequently declared a case involving the teaching of the Breton language inadmissible at its forty-fourth session on 6 April 1992 (R. L. M. v. France; communication No. 363/1989). The Human Rights Committee had previously declared similar cases against the State party involving the Breton language inadmissible. See Communication No. 220/1987 contained in Selected Decisions under the Optional Protocol, volume 3, with reference to communications Nos. 222/1987 and 262/1987. 8