CCPR/C/123/D/2831/2016 Administration agents that gave rise to his criminal conduct, which had begun prior to their intervention and was due to his membership of the criminal organization in question. 4.9 The State party submits that the charges brought against the author relate to acts that constitute criminal activities under Spanish law, as indicated in the court order of 26 October 2007, which states that, in accordance with the legislation in force at the time of the events, the offences for which the author was sought for prosecution in the United States were as follows: (a) conspiracy to commit murder; (b) conspiracy to subvert the authority of the State, its agents or public officials; (c) arms trafficking; (d) trafficking in explosives; and (e) conspiracy to launder money. 4.10 As for the claims that the extradition was politically motivated, the State party recalls that they were considered by the fourth section of the Criminal Division of the National High Court of Spain. In its order of 27 October 2007, the Court found that the claims had not been reasoned, justified or explained by the defence and concluded that the extradition request was based solely on the criminal charges mentioned. 4.11 The State party would also emphasize that it made the author’s extradition contingent upon the provision of diplomatic assurances and that the alleged ill-treatment of the author was not foreseeable at the time of extradition. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 The author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations in a letter dated 1 September 2017. 5.2 The author argues that the extradition contested in the communication accounts for the eight years that have elapsed between his extradition and the submission of the communication. He explains that, upon arrival in the United States, he was placed in solitary confinement, where he remains to this day. Up until 9 March 2015, the date of the decision of the Appeals Court of the Southern District of New York rejecting his request for a procedural review for violation of the right to a defence, and because of the illegality of his extradition, the author had attempted to get his rights reinstated by exhausting all available remedies in the United States. It was only when he had exhausted the last available remedy that he approached the Committee. 5.3 The author points out that he was subjected to torture between 16 September and 20 October 2016, in that he was kept in a basement adjacent to boilers emitting unbearable heat and noise, and the situation was brought to an end only after a lawyer filed a complaint with the prison authorities. The complaint resulted in his transfer to another prison. 5.4 The author denies the State party’s assertion that his membership of a criminal organization was the basis for the extradition request and points out that the organization to which he belonged had in fact been set up and funded by the Drug Enforcement Administration. 5.5 The author reaffirms that the extradition request did not meet all the required conditions set out in the extradition treaty, as the Embassy of Spain in the United States apparently failed to certify the document, in violation of article 10 of the treaty. 5.6 The author maintains that the United States exerted pressure during the author’s extradition proceedings. He considers that this pressure is clearly indicated in the classified reports of the United States Ambassador to Spain published by Wikileaks. He also notes that, in the same reports, the Ambassador details his meetings with the Spanish judge, who, in a decision of 22 March 1995, had found the author not guilty in proceedings instituted in connection with hostage-taking on the cruise ship Achille Lauro in 1985. The author believes that the purpose of the extradition request is actually for him be retried for these acts, in violation of article 14 (7) of the Covenant. 5.7 The author maintains that the State party has a duty to meet the requirements laid down by the judicial authorities for extradition and that they have not been respected in this case, as he was given a prison sentence that exceeded his life expectancy and was subjected to ill-treatment and arbitrary and discriminatory decisions. 6 GE.18-13666