CCPR/C/125/D/2657/2015 The author also refers to the “Proyecto de investigación de la tortura en el País Vasco (1960–2013)” (Project on torture investigations in the Basque Country (1960–2013)), a study on 4,000 cases of torture which the Basque government commissioned from the Basque Criminology Institute. The initial findings of 27 June 2016 were that the Istanbul Protocol was applicable to 200 of those persons, all of whom were deemed to be entirely credible. 7.11 Concerning his incommunicado detention, the author notes that he was held incommunicado in facilities of the Guardia Civil in Madrid for five days (the maximum period allowed by law), but that he later spent an additional three days incommunicado at the prison, for a total of eight days of incommunicado detention. Thus, he asserts, his incommunicado detention was extended, since he was already in prison, in order to erase or hide any sign of torture. 7.12 Lastly, regarding the incommunicado detention regime in the State party, which is applied almost exclusively in terrorism cases, the author recalls that the regime has been repeatedly criticized by various international bodies and contends that, the latest reform notwithstanding, the regime does not protect detainees inasmuch as it significantly restricts their rights and permits a complete lack of transparency that makes it extremely difficult to obtain evidence on what occurs during that form of detention, thereby affording complete impunity. The author reiterates that the regime should be abolished immediately. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 8.2 The Committee notes that the author filed an application regarding the same facts before the European Court of Human Rights (application No. 20764/14) and recalls that, in ratifying the Optional Protocol, Spain introduced a reservation excluding the competence of the Committee in relation to cases that have been or are being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee notes that, by a letter dated 18 September 2014, the author was informed that, in a decision taken in a single-judge formation, his application had been dismissed. The letter stated that, on the basis of the items of evidence in its possession and insofar as it was competent to decide on the complaints submitted to it, the Court had concluded that his application did not meet the admissibility criteria established under articles 34 and 35 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 8.4 The Committee recalls its case law relating to article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, according to which, when the European Court bases a declaration of inadmissibility not solely on procedural grounds but also on grounds arising from some degree of consideration of the substance of the case, then the matter should be deemed to have been examined within the meaning of the respective reservations to article 5. However, the Committee also recalls that, even in cases where applications have been declared inadmissible for lack of an appearance of a violation, the limited reasoning outlined in some decisions of this sort do not enable the Committee to assume that the European Court has examined a case on the merits.22 In the present case, the Committee notes that the decision of the European Court does not state that the appearance of a violation was not observed but, rather, indicates simply that the application fails to meet admissibility requirements, without further explanation. Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded from examining the present communication under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol. 8.5 Furthermore, the Committee notes that the State party did not raise the issue of the exhaustion of domestic remedies; accordingly, the Committee is of the opinion that it is not 22 GE.19-13559 See, inter alia, the Committee’s Views in Achabal Puertas v. Spain, para. 7.3, and A.G.S. v. Spain (CCPR/C/115/D/2626/2015), para. 4.2. 11