CCPR/C/123/D/2831/2016 4.3 The State party maintains that the author’s claims that his extradition took place in violation of the extradition treaty between Spain and the United States are unfounded and do not fall within the Committee’s mandate. 4.4 As for the acts of torture to which the author was allegedly subjected during his detention in Spain, the State party notes that, to its knowledge, the author never reported the acts to the national authorities and that he has produced no evidence that they actually occurred other than a letter sent to the National High Court of Spain more than three years after the alleged event. The State party concludes that this claim amounts to an abuse of the right to submit a communication and should be declared inadmissible under articles 3 and 5 (b) of the Optional Protocol for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. 4.5 The State party considers that the author’s claims that he did not have access to an effective remedy because he was unable to appeal against the decision of the Council of Ministers authorizing his extradition also constitutes an abuse of the right to submit a communication. In this connection, it stresses that that extradition was definitively approved by the National High Court in a case where the author had exhausted all the remedies available to him under Spanish law. The prerogative of the Council of Ministers is restricted to the possibility of not carrying out an extradition if it is a matter of national interest, and this may benefit the person subject to extradition. The State party therefore concludes that the claims concerning article 2 (3) of the Covenant are inadmissible, since there is insufficient evidence to support them. 4.6 The State party notes that the claims concerning articles 9, 14 and 15 of the Covenant relate to judicial proceedings that the author characterizes as a criminal trial. However, as the extradition proceedings did not involve a criminal complaint, article 14 of the Covenant is not applicable in this case. The State party refers here to the communications concerning Piscioneri v. Spain and Kindler v. Canada. 4 It therefore considers that these claims should be declared inadmissible ratione materiae. 4.7 The State party submits that the Covenant violations that allegedly occurred in the receiving State are inadmissible ratione loci. It maintains that the only valid question in this connection is whether, at the time of extradition, it was reasonably possible to foresee that the person subject to extradition might be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. 5 The State party submits that, in his implementation impact assessment submitted to the National High Court of Spain claiming the inadequacy of the diplomatic assurances given by the United States, the author acknowledged that Spain could be considered responsible for the violations that occurred in the receiving State only if it had been reasonably possible to foresee, at the time of extradition, that he might be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. In this case, the State party considers that the claim that it was reasonably possible to foresee, at the time of extradition, that the author might be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment is manifestly unfounded. For these reasons, the State party considers the complaint to be inadmissible. 4.8 As for the merits of the communication, the State party wishes to clarify the facts, given that, according to the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court,6 an offence is committed as a result of provocation when an intent to break the law is the consequence not of a conscious decision on the part of the defendant but of the actions of an agent or associate of the security forces who provokes, through his or her actions, criminal conduct that would not otherwise have occurred. No such offence exists when security agents are apprised of criminal activity and infiltrate the group of individuals responsible in order to gain access to information or evidence that will enable them to prevent or punish the crime. In this case, the basis for the extradition was the author’s membership of a criminal organization. It was not the conduct of the Drug Enforcement 4 5 6 GE.18-13666 See Piscioneri v. Spain (CCPR/C/78/D/956/2000), para. 6.3, and Kindler v. Canada (CCPR/C/48/D/470/1991), para. 6.1. The State party is referring to Kindler v. Canada. Supreme Court, Decision No. 484/2003 of 13 June 2003, Decision No. 4287/2002 of 12 June 2002 and Decision No. 943/2007 of 25 January 2007. Constitutional Court, Decision No. 11/1983 of 21 February 1983. 5