CCPR/C/125/D/2657/2015 was made to the absence of his lawyer during the hearing of witnesses and the contradictions contained in the statements of the accused parties.) 8 2.19 On 4 October 2011, the court dismissed the application for reconsideration but admitted the appeal. On 22 December 2011, the High Court of Bizkaia dismissed the appeal, noting that the author had not raised any procedural objection regarding the gathering of evidence during the investigation stage and that there was insufficient evidence to continue the investigation.9 2.20 On 13 March 2012, the author filed an application for amparo before the Constitutional Court for the violation of his rights to physical and psychological integrity and to an effective judicial remedy. On 11 September 2013, the Constitutional Court dismissed the amparo application on the grounds that the petition’s “particular constitutional significance” had not been demonstrated. 2.21 On 10 March 2014, the author filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights in which he claimed that article 3 (prohibition of torture), article 6 (1) (right to a fair trial) and article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated by the Constitutional Court’s failure to consider the merits of his case. 2.22 In a letter dated 18 September 2014, the author was informed that the European Court of Human Rights, sitting in a single-judge formation, had dismissed his application on the grounds that it did not meet admissibility requirements. 10 The complaint 3.1 The author claims that he has exhausted all available domestic remedies and that the case has not been examined by another procedure of international investigation or settlement, since the European Court of Human Rights did not consider the merits of his application. 3.2 The author claims that the State party violated his rights under articles 7 and 10 (1) of the Covenant inasmuch as he was tortured starting from the moment of his arrest and continuing on during the first five days of his incommunicado detention by the Guardia Civil. 3.3 The author also claims that his right to an effective remedy was violated by the failure to provide notification to his lawyer, which prevented her from attending a number of the proceedings relating to the investigation concerning the acts of torture to which he was subjected;11 by the absence of a proper analysis in the medical reports (as well as the fact that the medical reports did not meet the minimum standards set out in the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol)); and by the contradictions contained in the accused parties’ statements. 3.4 The author requests that the State party award him adequate compensation for the torture to which he was subjected during the five days that he was held incommunicado in police custody and that the regime of incommunicado detention provided for in the Criminal Procedure Act be declared incompatible with article 10 (1) of the Covenant on the grounds that it constitutes an obstacle to the eradication of torture. 8 9 10 11 GE.19-13559 The author points out contradictions in the statements of the officers of the Guardia Civil with regard to the time of his arrest, whether or not he resisted arrest and whether he was handcuffed or his hands were tied with a rope. The author provided a copy of the application for reconsideration with subsidiary appeal. The author provided a copy of the decision of the High Court of Bizkaia of 22 December 2011. The author provided a copy of his application and the European Court’s decision. On 1 December 2008, when the author signed his complaint; on 2 December 2009, when the designated lawyer made his statement; on 16 June 2010, when the forensic doctor who examined the author on the premises of the Guardia Civil gave her statement; and on 31 January 2011, when another statement was taken from the designated lawyer. 5