CAT/C/48/D/453/2011 police stations in Vitoria-Gasteiz and Madrid, be made available, that the forensic doctors give evidence, that he be allowed to testify as the aggrieved party, and that the Directorate General of the Basque Police be ordered to reveal the identity of the officers who had carried out investigations or otherwise had contact with him during his period in detention. The case was subsequently referred to the Second Examining Magistrate’s Court of VitoriaGasteiz, as the competent court to hear complaints in the location in which the alleged facts took place. On 3 October 2003, the Court ordered a stay of proceedings. It made the ruling after receiving the medical forensic reports and without conducting any further inquiries. 2.11 On 27 October 2003, the complainant filed an application for review with subsidiary appeal before the same Second Examining Magistrate’s Court of Vitoria-Gasteiz. He requested that hitherto unheard evidence should be gathered, including taking testimony from the complainant and the police officers involved in his arrest, custody and inquiry proceedings that preceded his statement to the police. He claimed that the medical forensic reports did not comply with the medical protocol established by the Ministry of Justice for the examination of detainees and that they were therefore insufficient or inadequate. He stated that the Court’s decision was not properly substantiated and that it failed to state clearly its reasons for ordering the stay of proceedings. On 3 February 2004, the Court dismissed the application for review but admitted the subsidiary appeal, requesting a formal submission from the complainant. In its ruling, the Court stated: “The complaint of alleged torture, which if substantiated should lead to the prosecution and punishment of those responsible, is one matter, and the results of investigations, in other words the forensic examinations, which suggest that no torture took place, are quite another. The presumption of innocence, which applies to the accused members of the security forces, must prevail over an accusation for which there is not the slightest evidence to justify any further investigation of the allegations.” 2.12 On 10 February 2004, the complainant made a written submission in support of the appeal and requested that proceedings revert to the investigation stage, to permit the taking of evidence needed to establish the facts. 2.13 On 30 March 2004, the Provincial High Court of Álava dismissed the appeal without gathering any further evidence. The Court ruled that the stay of proceedings had been ordered after the necessary inquiries had been made to verify whether the victim’s statements were confirmed by circumstantial evidence; that the forensic medical reports, even the one carried out in Madrid, had revealed no sign of ill-treatment or torture as alleged; and that the failure to comply with Ministry of Justice guidelines did not compromise their probative value. As a result, the Provincial High Court ruled that there was no need to request from the police the identity of the persons involved in the arrest and custody of the complainant, even more so given that the safety of the officers themselves could be compromised. 2.14 On 22 April 2004, the complainant filed an application for amparo before the Constitutional Court for violations of his rights to mental and physical integrity, effective legal protection, a fair trial and the use of pertinent evidence. He reiterated that the Second Examining Magistrate’s Court of Vitoria-Gasteiz had ordered the case to be shelved on the basis of a single inquiry and receipt of the brief reports of forensic examinations made while he was in detention. The complainant questioned the probative value of those medical reports and stated that neither the Court nor the Provincial High Court had taken his testimony or had requested that the Arkaute police station identify the officers who had been involved in his arrest, custody and questioning so that they could be called upon to testify. 2.15 On 23 June 2005, the Constitutional Court declared the application inadmissible, pointing out that the complainant had not complied with its requirement, set forth on 28 April, 3 June and 19 July 2004, that his legal representative submit credentials establishing GE.12-43762 5