CCPR/C/125/D/2657/2015 to this end, all steps should be taken that could be of help in determining the facts of the case. In the author’s view, the refusal of the court to adopt the measures requested in his complaint constitutes a serious violation of the right to a trial in which all safeguards are applied and all relevant evidence is presented. 2.15 On 17 February 2009, the court dismissed the application for reconsideration but admitted the application for appeal. On 20 March 2009, the High Court of Bizkaia admitted the appeal on the grounds that the stay was unjustified because the basic steps needed to reach a reasoned decision had not been taken. In addition, the High Court noted that torture can occur without necessarily leaving any physical trace and that, in the case of some offences, given the context of isolation and incommunicado detention in which they tend to occur, it is impossible to obtain much more than the victim’s account, and establishing what truly happened is, therefore, extremely difficult. Accordingly, the High Court ordered the initiation of a thorough investigation. 2.16 On 11 May 2009, Court of Investigation No. 2 of Bilbao ordered that the identities be made known of the forensic doctors who examined the author and the designated lawyer who assisted him when he made his statements at the General Directorate of the Guardia Civil and the National High Court. On 19 May 2009, the author’s lawyer requested permission to be present at the hearings. However, on 2 December 2009 and 16 June 2010, the designated lawyer3 and the forensic doctor who had examined the author at the premises of the Guardia Civil4 gave statements in the absence of the author’s lawyer, who had not been notified. The author’s statements before the National High Court on 11 December 2007 were subsequently included in the file. On 22 December 2010, statements were taken from five officers of the Guardia Civil against whom charges had been brought, with the author’s lawyer in attendance. 5 On 31 January 2011, a statement from the designated lawyer was taken again, without notifying the author’s lawyer.6 On 18 April 2011, at the request of the judge, a report by a doctor from the Basque Forensic Institute was issued which repeated what had been said in the report of 31 March 2010. These reports indicate that the author’s wounds were consistent with his account. 7 2.17 On 10 June 2011, Court of Investigation No. 2 of Bilbao once again granted a stay of proceedings on the grounds that the investigation had not uncovered any evidence of the commission of the acts alleged in the complaint. 2.18 On 6 July 2011, the author filed another application for reconsideration with subsidiary appeal against the stay of proceedings, claiming that article 173 et seq. of the Criminal Code, article 3 (prohibition of torture and ill-treatment) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) and article 15 of the Constitution (right to physical and psychological integrity) had been violated, as had the rights to an effective judicial remedy and to a fair trial. (Reference 3 4 5 6 7 4 The designated lawyer stated that he saw the author on three nights and that the Guardia Civil informed him that the forensic doctor from the High Court was examining the author daily. The forensic doctor referred to her medical reports, stating that the wounds she had observed were not consistent with the complainant’s account. The author provided a copy of the statements of the five defendants, who said that the author’s hands had been handcuffed in front of him during the car journey to Madrid and that there had been no stop along the way. They denied all of the author’s allegations. The designated lawyer claimed that he did not see any wounds on the author when he was brought before the National High Court. In addition, the author had requested that his relatives be informed of his detention, which had been done. The author provided a copy of both expert forensic reports by Dr. Irene Landa Tabuyo from the Basque Forensic Institute, which indicate that the account is consistent with the evidence. The reports state that suffocation – from which one can recover quite quickly – does not typically leave any external marks on the body; that physically demanding exercise does not leave visible external marks; that threats, humiliation and shouts do not leave external traces; that, regarding the sexual violence recounted by the author, wounds can be clinically insignificant or even absent; and that tying a rope around the penis can cause bruising. Furthermore, the wounds described in the preceding sections constitute temporary superficial trauma and generally, in the absence of complications, rarely leave permanent scars. GE.19-13559