CCPR/C/125/D/2657/2015 Investigative Chamber of the National High Court,14 with the corresponding documentation being included in police file No. G9481912111-07-00021 as submitted to Central Investigative Chamber No. 2 of the National High Court. The State party specifies that the medical examinations did not detect any noteworthy marks (aside from a minor scratch on the right side of the abdomen) and that, prior to being brought before a judge on 11 December 2007, the author did not report any ill-treatment to the forensic doctor. 6.4 The State party acknowledges that, during the examination of 11 December, the forensic doctor observed a 3-mm bruise on the upper portion of the author’s penis, as well as minor sores on the inside of his upper lip, but that he bore no marks of having been hit on the head, chest, abdomen or legs. The State party emphasizes that the author’s anus and testicles were normal and showed no traces of violence and that there were no signs of suffocation. The State party adds that, according to the medical report prepared at the prison on 13 December, no wounds or noteworthy acute psychological or physical disorders were observed upon the author’s arrival and that his overall condition was good and did not require any particular treatment. 6.5 The State party points out that the doctor chosen by the author noted that the minor sores on the inside of the upper lip could have been caused by, inter alia, him accidentally biting his lip or by a toothbrush or the ingestion of hot food and that the 3-mm bruise on his penis could have been caused by a rope being tied around it. 6.6 As for the domestic remedies sought by the author in relation to the alleged illtreatment, the State party notes that judicial proceedings were initiated with a view to shedding light on the facts of the case and that, in response to the investigative court’s first removal of the case from the register, the higher court ordered the continuation of inquiries. A thorough investigation was then conducted. That investigation included the confirmation by the complainant of his original account and the recording of statements from the forensic doctor, the designated lawyer who attended the author during the period of incommunicado detention, the officers of the Guardia Civil involved in the arrest and interrogations during the period of incommunicado detention and the doctor of the author’s choice who prepared a report on the basis of the available reports and statements. In reviewing the evidence described above, the State party points to the fact that the designated lawyer did not observe any signs of ill-treatment, which is why, once the collection of all the evidence had been completed, the investigative court removed the case from the register for lack of corroboration of the statement, a decision that was then upheld by the higher court. 6.7 The State party concludes that the author is describing violent practices that are not in the least bit credible given that the signs described by the forensic doctor do not in any way hint at the repeated sessions of ill-treatment to which the applicant claims to have been subjected. In the State party’s view, it is a well-known fact that the terrorist group ETA has adopted a strategy whereby members of the group who are detained systematically claim to have been subjected to ill-treatment in police facilities. The State party cites decision No. 1136/2011 of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of 2 November 2011 to support the existence of a strategy that all ETA activists are obliged to apply, whereby its members systematically claim to have been tortured as a political, military and procedural strategy in the hopes of having certain pieces of evidence disallowed. 6.8 Regarding the conditions of detention, the alleged ill-treatment and the domestic remedies sought by the author, the State party notes that the Committee found that the matter falls within the scope of article 7 of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), rather than article 10 (1), and that for a violation of article 7 to be found, the author’s account must be credible and consistent. The State party also notes that, according to the Committee, when a medical report is issued without the author’s having been examined by the doctor concerned, it “does not constitute sufficient grounds for refuting the medical reports based on the examination and direct treatment of the author”.15 14 15 GE.19-13559 On 7 December at 1 p.m., on 8 December at 10.19 a.m., on 9 December at 5.50 p.m. and on 10 December at 8.45 p.m. Achabal Puertas v. Spain, para. 8.4. 7