CCPR/C/123/D/2831/2016 6.5 The Committee notes that the State party considers the claim made under article 2 (3), read in conjunction with articles 7, 9, 10 (1) and (3), 14 (1), (2) and (3) (e), 15 (1) and 26 of the Covenant, to be manifestly unfounded and inadmissible, since the extradition was definitively approved by the National High Court of Spain in proceedings in which the author used all the available domestic remedies. The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that he was never notified of the decision of the Council of Ministers of 6 June 2008 and that there was no appeal against such a decision. The Committee recalls that the author does not deny that he was able to appeal against the decisions taken by the Spanish judicial authorities that considered the extradition request. The Committee considers that the author has failed to substantiate sufficiently his claims under article 2 (3) of the Covenant and therefore finds the claim to be inadmissible. 6.6 The Committee notes that, according to the State party, the author has failed to prove that it was reasonably possible for the State party to foresee, at the time of extradition, that he might be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. The Committee notes that the author has not discussed the extent to which such treatment was foreseeable and has merely stated that it occurred. It notes that the State party sought diplomatic assurances and that the author has failed to explain the reasons why such assurances were not sufficient and the extent to which they were violated. Consequently, the Committee finds that the claims put forward under articles 2 (1), 7, 9, 10 (1) and (3), 14 (1), (2) and (3) (e), 15 (1) and 26 of the Covenant with regard to the events that occurred following the author’s extradition have not been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.7 The Committee further notes that, in an order dated 26 October 2007, the fourth section of the Criminal Division of the National High Court of Spain considered the author’s claims that the acts serving as the basis for his extradition did not constitute a criminal offence in Spain and issued an opinion in favour of his extradition on condition that diplomatic assurances were given. The Committee also notes that, on 15 January 2008, the Criminal Division of the National High Court considered the author’s claims and upheld this decision. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that it is generally for the courts of States parties to evaluate facts and evidence, unless it can be ascertained that the conduct of the trial or the evaluation of facts and evidence was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. On the basis of the information before it, the Committee is unable to conclude that the authorities of the State party acted arbitrarily in evaluating the facts and evidence of the case and it therefore considers that the claim is not sufficiently substantiated to be admissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; That the communication is inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional (b) That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the author of the communication. 8 GE.18-13666