CCPR/C/125/D/2657/2015 precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from considering the present communication. 8.6 The Committee, noting that the author’s claims under articles 2 (3), 7 and 10 (1) of the Covenant have been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of a finding of admissibility, declares them admissible and proceeds to the consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee takes note of the author’s claims that he was repeatedly tortured by officers of the Guardia Civil over the course of the five days during which he was held incommunicado in Guardia Civil facilities and during which he was denied the right to assistance from a lawyer of his choosing and the right to communicate with his family. The State party contends that the author was treated appropriately while he was held in police custody and that he was seen daily by a forensic doctor to whom he did not disclose the alleged ill-treatment. The State party points out that the author’s statements were recorded as prescribed by law, including their time, length and authorship, and that a thorough investigation was conducted. It further states that, as a result of that investigation, the complaint was set aside for lack of evidence and consistency in the account. 9.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, according to which “the text of article 7 allows of no limitation … no justification or extenuating circumstances may be invoked to excuse a violation of article 7 for any reasons”. 23 This absolute prohibition also extends to threats of terrorism, which therefore cannot be invoked to justify the use of torture to extract information from suspected terrorists.24 9.4 In the present case, the Committee takes note of the author’s detailed and consistent description of the events that occurred during his detention in the General Directorate of the Guardia Civil in Madrid, of the acts of torture to which he was subjected and of the State party’s failure to produce the detention log. It also takes note of the medical reports, in particular the report of 7 December 2007, which noted that the author had ligature marks on his skin and appeared to be anxious, the report of 11 December 2007 from the forensic doctor assigned to the National High Court, who observed a 3-mm bruise on the upper portion of the penis, minor sores on the inside of his upper lip and aphonia, and of the two expert reports prepared by the Basque Forensic Institute at the request of the investigating judge, which stated that the signs detected during the examination were consistent with the author’s account of his ill-treatment. The Committee notes that the State party has not provided any explanation in this regard. The State party argues that the author did not report the ill-treatment until he was brought before a judge. However, the Committee notes that, according to the author, he did not report the ill-treatment during his time in police custody out of fear of reprisal. 9.5 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee is of the view that the treatment to which the author was subjected during the five days in which he was held incommunicado at the General Directorate of the Guardia Civil constitutes a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 9.6 Having found a violation of article 7 of the Covenant, the Committee does not deem it necessary to consider the claim that the same acts also constituted a violation of article 10 (1) of the Covenant. 9.7 Regarding the author’s claim concerning the lack of an effective remedy for securing the investigation and prosecution of the perpetrators of the torture, the Committee notes that the author reported the acts of torture at his first hearing before the National High Court on 11 December 2007 but that no investigation was initiated ex officio at that time. 23 24 12 Para. 3. See A/61/259, paras. 44–65. GE.19-13559