CCPR/C/123/D/2831/2016 3.5 The author states that the extradition request that led to his arrest in Spain on 7 June 2007 did not adhere to the principles of the extradition treaty between Spain and the United States.3 He therefore considers that his arrest on 7 June 2007 and his detention have no legal basis and constitute a violation of article 9 (1) of the Covenant. Furthermore, as he has not received compensation, the author also claims a violation of article 9 (5) of the Covenant. 3.6 The author argues that the charges that served as the basis for the request for his extradition related to offences committed as a result of provocation, that they have been falsified and that they are therefore not punishable under Spanish law. He also claims that the request for his extradition was politically motivated. Consequently, he claims that his extradition amounted to a violation of article 14 (1) and (2), read in conjunction with the principle of legality enshrined in article 15 (1) and article 2 (1) of the Covenant. 3.7 The author claims that in the United States he is a victim of violations of articles 2 (1), 7, 9, 10 (1) and (3), 14 (1), (2) and (3) (e), 15 (1) and 26 of the Covenant and that, since these violations are the inevitable and foreseeable consequence of his extradition, the State party bears responsibility for them. He wishes to underline the fact that he was discriminated against on account of his Arab origin and his sympathy for Palestinian nationalism and that he had not enjoyed the presumption of innocence, as his conviction had already been declared a certainty by Drug Enforcement Administration agents during his flight to the United States. The decision to place extreme restrictions on his communications amounts to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, especially given the state of his health, which was known to the Spanish authorities, and the additional illtreatment that he suffered in prison. He further recalls that, despite the fact that Spain was given diplomatic assurances that he would not receive a life sentence, he was in fact sentenced to 30 years in prison, a sentence that far exceeds his life expectancy. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 The State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and the merits of the communication in a note verbale dated 14 July 2017. 4.2 The State party points out that the communication was submitted more than eight years after the exhaustion of domestic remedies in Spain and that the claims made to the Committee are the same as those submitted to the Constitutional Court of Spain eight years earlier, with the exception of the claim of ill-treatment during the author’s detention in the country. The State party likewise points out that the author justifies the delay by claiming that he had been obliged to track down certain documents and that he had been unable to contact lawyers outside the United States. However, the author fails to specify which documents or to explain why he was allegedly unable to make contact with his lawyers. The State party asserts that the author and his representatives have at all times enjoyed access to the documentation relating to the extradition proceedings, as confirmed by the author in his statements before the domestic courts. The only document to which he has formally requested access is the original extradition request, with a view to supporting his claims regarding the alleged non-conformity of his extradition with the applicable extradition treaty. However, the State party considers that these claims are unfounded and that they do not fall within the Committee’s competence ratione materiae. The State party recalls that the extradition order is annexed to the communication submitted to the Committee. It adds that the author and his lawyers were in possession of all the documents required for the submission of the author’s complaints to the Spanish courts and to the Committee. The State party considers that the communication constitutes an abuse of the right to submit a complaint, by reason of the time that has elapsed between the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the submission of the complaint to the Committee. It therefore considers that the complaint should be declared inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 3 4 Extradition treaty between Spain and the United States of America, 29 May 1970, published in Boletín Oficial del Estado No. 220/1971 of 14 September 1971. GE.18-13666