Issues and violations found Complainant’s extradition to Peru constituted a violation of article 3 Interim measures granted and State party response Granted but not acceded to by the State party8 Remedy recommended None Due date for State party response 7 March 1999 Date of reply Most recent reply dated 9 November 2005 State party response On 13 June 2001 (as reflected in the progress report during the thirty-fourth session), the State party had reported on the conditions of detention of the complainant in the prison of Chorrillos, Lima. On 23 November 2000, the Ambassador of Venezuela in Peru together with some representatives of the Peruvian administration visited the complainant in prison. The team interviewed the complainant for 50 minutes, and she informed them that she had not been subjected to any physical or psychological mistreatment. The team observed that the prisoner appeared to be in good health. She had been transferred in September 2000 from the top security pavilion to the “medium special security” pavilion, where she had other privileges such as one hour of visits per week, two hours per day in the courtyard and access to working and educative activities. By note verbale dated 18 October 2001, the State party forwarded a second report made by the Defensor del Pueblo (Ombudsman) dated 27 August 2001 about the complainant’s conditions of detention. It included a report of a visit to the 8 The Committee stated “Furthermore, the Committee is deeply concerned by the fact that the State party did not accede to the request made by the Committee under rule 108, paragraph 3, of its rules of procedure that it should refrain from expelling or extraditing the author while her communication was being considered by the Committee and thereby failed to comply with the spirit of the Convention. The Committee considers that the State party, in ratifying the Convention and voluntarily accepting the Committee’s competence under article 22, undertook to cooperate with it in good faith in applying the procedure. Compliance with the provisional measures called for by the Committee in cases it considers reasonable is essential in order to protect the person in question from irreparable harm, which could, moreover, nullify the end result of the proceedings before the Committee.” 120