CAT/C/48/D/453/2011 the Human Rights Committee and other international bodies that have recommended its abolition. The State party has not taken the necessary steps to effectively prevent acts of torture throughout the territory under its jurisdiction, thereby failing to comply with its obligations under article 16 of the Convention.7 3.2 Notwithstanding the complainant’s allegations of torture and ill-treatment and his repeated requests to the courts that they conduct inquiries, they ignored their duty to investigate, failing to take any action or rejecting his requests. As a result, there was a violation of article 14 of the Convention, given that the State party should have redressed the wrong he had suffered as a victim of torture and taken steps to ensure that such acts did not happen again. According to the complainant, remedial measures cover all the damages suffered by the victim, including restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition, as well as prevention, investigation, and punishment of the persons responsible. 3.3 With regard to article 15 of the Convention, the complainant asserts that the trial leading to his conviction was unfair. His self-incriminating statements, obtained under torture in a police station, were used as proof leading to his conviction for the crime of terrorist murder. He maintains that his trial and conviction were based on those selfincriminating statements, submitted to the court by the authorities in the form of testimony by the police officers who had taken part in the investigation. His confession in the police station could at most be considered an element of circumstantial evidence. He concludes that direct or circumstantial evidence obtained in violation of fundamental rights may not be used in criminal proceedings. 3.4 The complainant alleges that his right to effective legal protection has been infringed, given that the application for cassation he filed before the Supreme Court does not constitute a second hearing because it does not entail a full review of the evidence and proven facts. Moreover, the complainant alleges violations of articles 7, 9 (para. 3) and 14 (paras. 1 and 2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 3.5 The complainant requests that the State party: provide redress for all damages, including financial compensation of €30,000; conduct a prompt and impartial investigation of his claims of torture and ill-treatment; review his conviction, which was based on a confession obtained under torture; and guarantee that no statement obtained under torture may be invoked as evidence in any legal proceedings. 3.6 With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the complainant maintains that he applied for all the remedies available before the domestic courts under Spanish law, including two applications for constitutional amparo, the first of which he filed with a view to settling his torture claim, and the second in order to challenge his conviction of the crime of terrorist murder. State party’s observations 4.1 In a note verbale of 5 September 2011, the State party submitted its observations. 4.2 With regard to the complainant’s claim of having been subjected to torture and the ensuing proceedings before domestic courts, it states that his application for amparo to the Constitutional Court was dismissed on 23 June 2005 because the complainant failed to appear with a legal representative, in spite of the court’s repeated requests. It states that the complainant did not have recourse to any international body or the Committee against 7 8 reports of Spain (CAT/C/CR/29/3 and CAT/C/ESP/CO/5, respectively). The complainant refers to the Human Rights Committee’s concluding observations on the fourth and fifth periodic reports of Spain (CCPR/C/79/Add.61 and CCPR/C/ESP/CO/5, respectively). GE.12-43762