not meet the requirements of article 3 of the Convention. State party has an obligation to refrain from forcibly returning Mr. Gorki Ernesto Tapia Páez to Peru. 15. In the light of the above, the Committee is of the view that, in the prevailing circumstances, the Communication N° 59/1996 Submitted by: Encarnación Blanco Abad Alleged victim: The author State party: Spain Date of adoption of Views: 14 May 1998 Subject matter: ill-treatment during detention under anti-terrorist legislation 2.3 On 2 February 1993 the court ordered a stay of proceedings, not considering the incident reported to be a penal offence. Following an appeal, Court N° 44 granted permission on 13 October 1994 to continue with criminal proceedings. The judge handed down an order dated 4 April 1994 to shelve proceedings definitively. The Provincial High Court confirmed this decision by order dated 5 September 1995. An application for remedy of amparo filed with the Constitutional Court against the Provincial High Court’s order was dismissed on 29 January 1996. Procedural issue: none Substantive issues: failure to promptly investigate allegations of torture; admissibility of evidence obtained under torture Articles of the Convention: 12, 13, 15 1. The author of the communication is Encarnación Blanco Abad, 1 a Spanish citizen. She claims to be the victim of violations by Spain of articles 12, 13 and 15 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. She is represented by counsel. State party’s observations on admissibility 3.1 In its submission of 17 January 1997, the State party pointed out that since 3 February 1992 Mrs. Blanco Abad had been assigned up to seven lawyers to represent and defend her. Despite this, Mrs. Blanco Abad had not formally reported any mistreatment. It submitted that the legal proceedings were set in train by the official transmission to the court of the report of the medical check-up on the author conducted when she entered the Madrid Penitentiary Centre on 3 February 1992. That is, the only legal investigations of alleged mistreatment were instituted not in response to a report by the individual concerned, nor by her family, nor by any of her seven lawyers, but rather as the result of an official procedure enshrined in the regulations to safeguard human rights. Not until 30 May 1994, two years and three months after the event, did the author send a written communication to Court of Investigation N° 44 designating three legal representatives. The facts as submitted by the author 2.1 The author was detained along with her husband, Josu Eguskiza, on 29 January 1992 by officers of the Guardia Civil for alleged involvement in activities on behalf of the armed gang ETA. She alleges that she was mistreated between 29 January and 2 February 1992, when she was kept incommunicado under anti-terrorist legislation. 2.2 Brought before Madrid Court of Criminal Investigation N° 44 for preliminary investigation N° 205/92 on 13 March 1992, the author described the mistreatment and torture to which she had been subjected while in the custody of the Guardia Civil. The preliminary investigation had been instituted by the court upon receiving, from the Director of Carabanchel Women’s Penitentiary Centre, the report of the doctor who had examined the author and observed bruises upon her entry into the Centre on 3 February 1992. 3.2 The State party admitted that, with the decision of the Constitutional Court on 29 January 1996, all domestic remedies had been exhausted. 3.3 In reference to article 13 of the Convention, the State party confirmed that by letter of 9 September 1994, Mrs. Blanco Abad’s counsel had appealed against the stay of the officially instituted investigations. On 13 October 1994 Court N° 44 1 An earlier communication submitted on behalf of the author and her husband (communication N° 10/1993) was declared inadmissible by the Committee on 14 November 1994 for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. 37