professional field or challenging the medical attestations to the serious risk to the mother’s life. Furthermore, the Committee may note that the State party has not submitted any evidence contradicting the statements and evidence supplied by the author. Refusing a therapeutic abortion not only endangered the author’s life but had grave consequences which the author has also substantiated to the Committee by means of valid supporting documents. It is not only taking a person’s life that violates article 6 of the Covenant but also placing a person’s life in grave danger, as in this case. Consequently, I consider that the facts in the present case reveal a violation of article 6 of the Covenant. Communication No. 1156/2003 Submitted by: Rafael Pérez Escolar (represented by counsel) Alleged victim: The author State party: Spain Date of adoption of Views: 28 March 2006 Subject matter: Scope of review in cassation proceedings in the Spanish Supreme Court; imposition of heavier penalties by the higher court author was accused of involvement in 3 out of 11 allegedly irregular operations approved by the management of BANESTO. On 31 March 2000 the National High Court sentenced the author to five years and eight months’ imprisonment and a fine of 18 million pesetas for fraud and four months for misappropriation. The author was acquitted of a charge of forgery. With regard to the first offence, the author states that he was charged with having obtained joint venture partnerships free of charge. He claims that the High Court refused to admit as evidence either the statements of seven expert witnesses for the defence or the documents submitted by the author himself—none of which evidence, according to the author, may be reviewed in the higher court. With regard to the second offence, the author claims that the conviction was based on conflicting evidence, including in particular the testimony of three prosecution witnesses whose credibility could not be reviewed by the higher court. Procedural issues: Substantive issues: Right to have sentence and conviction reviewed by a higher court in accordance with the law Article of the Covenant: 14, para. 5 Articles of the Optional Protocol: Finding: No violation 1. The author of the communication, dated 13 December 2002, is Rafael Pérez Escolar, a Spanish national born in 1927, who claims to be a victim of a violation by Spain of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for Spain on 25 April 1985. The author is represented by counsel, Mr. Iván Hernández Urraburu and Mr. José Luis Mazón Costa. 2.3 The author submitted an appeal in cassation on 16 grounds in the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court, requesting it to review various points of fact relating to his conviction. Since no review of the facts of a case is possible in cassation, the author attempted to obtain reconsideration of the prosecution evidence underpinning the conviction indirectly, by invoking the presumption of innocence, but without success. In the course of the cassation proceedings, the Committee published its opinion in the Gómez Vázquez case, which prompted the author to petition the Supreme Court on three different occasions to apply the Committee’s reasoning on the second hearing principle contained in article 14, paragraph 5, but his applications were rejected. The facts as presented by the author 2.1 The author member of the (BANESTO). On dismissed from his members. was a shareholder and board Banco Español de Crédito 28 December 1993 he was post along with the other board 2.2 On 14 November 1994, the prosecutor’s office attached to the National High Court brought criminal proceedings against 10 individuals, including the author, for forgery of a commercial document and misappropriation. In the course of the hearings, which lasted two years, statements were taken from 470 witnesses and expert witnesses. The case file consisted of 53 volumes of pretrial proceedings and 121 volumes of evidence. The 2.4 The General Workers Union (UGT), the plaintiff in the appeal in cassation, claimed before the Supreme Court that, with regard to the offence of 113