79. With regar~ to article 4 of the Convention, the representative noted that Organiaation Act No. 3/1989 defined certain fO~1 of violence that left no trace and provided for the relevant penalties and that article 420 b!a of the Pen~l Code covered internal or e.ternal injuriel caused by ill-treatment. Recourse to torture was formally prohibited whether a8 punishm~At. or as meanl of obtaining a confe8sion. The parliamentary Commissioner's repo~t mentioned a nUM~~r of compla;nts recently lodged againlt certain officials but added that they related to isolated and quite e.ceptional occurrences. 80. Referring to article 10 of the Convention, the representative stated that prevention and prohibition of torture wure incorporated into all the traininq programmea of officiala who dealt with persona subjected to detention or imprisonment, inclUding forensic Burgeons and pri80n doctors. OD 26 November 1990, prison doctors together with police and Civil Guard officials were to tate ~art in a training programme specially organi.ed for them in Strasbourg. 81. In connection with article 13 of the Convention, the representative noted that a complaint made by members of the terrorist group GRAPO, alleging artificial or forced feeding while they had been on a hunger strite, was currently being e.amined by the European Commission on Human Rights. Ho abuse of authority had beten signalled when the "Araba" commando was taken into custody on 19 September 1989. 82. With regard to article 14 of the Convention, the representative said that the principle of State responsibility for acts committed by its officials was reflected in several constitutional and legislative provisions. Tbe actual amount of compensation in cases involving the responsibility of the State was determined by the judicial authority on a case-by-case basis. 83. In connection with article 15 of the Convention, tbe representative 8tated that the decisions of the Constitutional Court referred to in the report implied that any evidence obtained by unlawful means, i.e. means incompatible with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, was inadmislible. 84. Finally, the representative stated that Spain would provide more detailed information on issues raised by the members of tbe Committee in its second periodic report. Concludiag Qbseryations 85. In their conCluding remarks, members of the Committee tbanked tbe representative of Spain for his detailed r~plies. They were of the view that Spain was endeavouring to respect its obligations UDder the Convention and that Spanish law embodIed a number of relevant standards. In that connectIon, they said that it would be very useful to bave at their dilposal the teatl ot all the laws and regulations which had been mentioned in the report. The members Qf the Committee were, none the less, concerned about certain issues relating tQ the implementation by Spain of the CQnventiQn, auch aD the direct application of its prQvisions in Spanish internal law. They considered that Spanish domestic law shQuld provide a definition of torture that aatched the terms of the Convention and, where th~ applicat~on of criminal l~w was 86. -17-