---~.~-~_.~---- ?t. Tbe Parllamenta&"y COJMI1ss.\oner was elected by a quaUfied majority of the Cortes, was independent, was empowered to monitor goverament activities, and drew up an annual report on his extremely varied activities which was examined by Parliament. He was also empowered to transmit any complaints of torture to the Government Procurator's Office so that the latter could initiate criminal proceedings if deemed necessary. 15. The representative provided detailed info~ation on remedies available to individuals in Spain. The remedy of habe.s COlpU' could be invoked aD~ no on. could be unlawfully arrested or dotaiDed. Amparo could be invoked after all other remedies had been exhausted if any of the constitutionally quaranteed fundamental rights had been brea,~hed. An application for amparo could also be made to the Constitutional Court if rights that were not c)nsidered fundam~ntal had been breached. Confirming the fact that members of the security forces were tried directly by the Provincial Court, a court of .econd instance, the representative explained that the origins of that somewhat contro....erslal system lay in the notion that higher-ranking jUdges were lltss likAly to be influenced or intimidated by members of the police. Ordinary offenders had to be info~ed within 24 hours of their rights according to the Constitution and the Code of Penal Proiedure. After 72 hours of custody the detainee had to be released or placed at the disposal of the 1udg8. 16. As to the definition of acts of torture under Spanish law. th& representative stated that th~ definition given in article 1 of the Convention was directly applicable in Spain and that any official found guilty of such acts was liable to the penalties aet out in the Penal Code. 17. With reference to article 2 of the Convention, the representative said that ~ distinction was made among detainees depending on whether they were ordinary off~nders or members of terrorist groups, a~ed gangl or orgeni.ed groups such as drug trafficters. The latter were held incommunicado and were not allowed to choose their counsel but were a•• isted by an assigned counsel. They could be kept in custody for a period longer than 7~ hours, but not exceeding five days. WhIle in custody, detaInee. co~l~ ba Inl_rrogated In the presence and with the assistance of their counsel and they were informed of their riqhts. Tbe trial procedure was the same for all detainee. regardle•• of the category to whlch they belonged. A .tatement made by a detain.e was invalid if he appeared to have been ill-treated or brutaliued. All prisoners were entitled, as soon 8S they were arre.ted, to be ex..1Ded by a doctor. The text of the order concerniug as.istance for detaine.. 111ued by the Miniltry of the Interior would be made available to the Committe.. The function. of the forensic surgeon were defined by the Courts Orqani.ation Act aDd the diagnosis was never questioned. If they so de.ired, judqe. could visit Civil Guard premises ~r police stations to verify the treatment gIven to suspected members of organiled groups who were being held incommunicado. Re'~rring to article 3 of the Convention, the re?re.entative stated that the Council of Ministers was responsible for considering applications for extradition and for deciding whether to transmit them to the NatIonal High Court in Madrid. Extrddition was granted or refused by the political authorities depending on whether that body approved or rejected ""e application. The Spanish Government was kept informed through diplomatic channels of the sltuation in the country requesting the extradition. 18. -16- ............ _.