CCPR/C/125/D/2657/2015 State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 21 December 2015, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility of the communication, requesting the Committee to find the case inadmissible on the grounds that it had already been examined under another international procedure and found to be inadmissible by a judge with the assistance of a rapporteur. 4.2 The State party notes that the European Court of Human Rights did not indicate the actual reason for its finding of inadmissibility, but it contends that a reading of article 35 of the European Convention on Human Rights shows that the Court did indeed consider the merits of the case. The State party rules out the possibility that the case was found inadmissible on the grounds that it was anonymous or essentially the same as another before concluding that it can only have been dismissed pursuant to article 35 (3) (a) of the European Convention, which stipulates that an application is declared inadmissible if it is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, manifestly illfounded, or an abuse of the right of individual application. The State party asserts that the decision of inadmissibility included a consideration of the merits of the case and requests the Committee to contact the European Court for further information in this regard. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 25 January 2016, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations on the admissibility of the communication. The author recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence12 according to which a case is not deemed to have been considered by the European Court of Human Rights if it has been found inadmissible for reasons of form. The author further recalls that, in such situations, the Committee has been of the opinion that the limited reasoning contained in the Court’s letter does not allow the Committee to assume that the examination included sufficient consideration of the merits and that, consequently, there is no obstacle to its consideration of the communication under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol. 5.2 The author argues that, since the European Court found his application inadmissible because it failed to fulfil the admissibility requirements, which refer to matters of form not of merit, his application has not been examined by any other international body and should be found admissible by the Committee. State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 On 22 April 2016, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the communication, in which it notes that the author was arrested for belonging to the terrorist organization ETA and was held by the Guardia Civil – under the oversight of Central Investigative Chamber No. 2 of the National High Court – until he was brought before a judge on 11 December 2007. According to the State party, the author was held incommunicado by order of a judge, who believed the measure to be proportional, necessary and appropriate owing to indications of the author’s involvement in terrorismrelated offences. The author was subsequently convicted by decision No. 35/2009 of the First Section of the Criminal Chamber of the National High Court. 13 6.2 Regarding the author’s general conditions of detention, the State party submits that he was treated appropriately during his stay at the premises of the Guardia Civil and that the relevant legal procedures were followed when his statements were taken, including with regard to the noting of the start and end times of the interviews, the names of the officers involved and those of the investigator and clerk present at each step of the police investigation, thereby fulfilling the requirements and observing the rules governing the conduct of law enforcement personnel in cases of detention. 6.3 Concerning the alleged ill-treatment, the State party submits that while the author was held in police custody, he was seen on a daily basis by a forensic doctor assigned to the 12 13 6 The author cites the Committee’s Views in the case Achabal Puertas v. Spain (CCPR/C/107/D/1945/2010). The author was sentenced to almost 12 years’ imprisonment for belonging to an armed gang, unlawful possession of weapons and the continuing offence of falsifying an official document. GE.19-13559