tachycardia. The interrogations and threats continued and a third visit was made by the doctor some hours later. Meanwhile, his wife met the judge on 15 January 1997. She expressed fears concerning her husband’s state of health and asked to see him, but this request was denied. On the forensic physician’s advice, the author was transferred to a hospital. After being injected with serum and undergoing various tests, he was returned to Civil Guard Headquarters. During the day of 16 January, out of fear of reprisals, he signed a statement before a designated lawyer which the Civil Guard officers had themselves dictated. That evening he was brought before the judge, who had just lifted the incommunicado order. He was also examined by a forensic physician appointed by the family. This physician concluded that the allegations of ill-treatment represented coherent testimony. 2 On 17 January 1997, Mr. Arkauz was visited by a delegation of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT)3 in Soto del Real prison. On 10 March 1997, he filed a complaint of torture. conviction in Spain. It was an administrative procedure that did not arise from an extradition request made by the Spanish judicial authorities. The five days of police custody and incommunicado detention to which Mr. Arkauz could be subjected under the Spanish law on terrorism would be used to obtain from him the confessions needed for him to be charged. During this period he would not be given the protection of the judicial authorities to which he would have been entitled had he been extradited. The lack of jurisdictional guarantees thus increased the risk of torture. 3.5 In support of his claims, the author mentioned the cases of several Basque prisoners who had allegedly been tortured by the Spanish police between 1986 and 1996 after being expelled from French territory and handed over to the Spanish security forces at the border. In addition, he cited the reports of various international bodies and nongovernmental organizations which had expressed their concern at the use of torture and ill-treatment in Spain and at the Spanish legislation enabling persons suspected of belonging to or collaborating with armed groups to be held incommunicado for five days, as well as regarding the impunity apparently enjoyed by the perpetrators of acts of torture. The combination of these various factors (existence of an administrative practice, serious deficiencies in the protection of persons deprived of their liberty and lack of punishment for officials employing torture) provided substantial grounds for believing that the author was in real danger of being subjected to torture. Lastly, he expressed his fears regarding the conditions of detention to which he would be submitted if he was imprisoned in Spain. The complaint 3.1 In his communication of 16 December 1996, the author stated that his forcible return to Spain and handing over to the Spanish security forces constituted a violation by France of articles 3 and 16 of the Convention against Torture. 3.2 The author referred to article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention and claimed that the domestic remedies available against warrants of deportation were neither useful nor effective, since they had no suspensive effect and the courts would reach a decision long after the deportation had been carried out. In addition, the procedures were unreasonably prolonged. The admissibility requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies was therefore said not to be applicable in the case. 3.6 On 16 December 1996, the author also stated that during his transfer to the border there was a risk that he would be subjected to ill-treatment contrary to article 16 of the Convention, since the police could use force and he would be completely isolated from family and counsel. 3.3 The author submitted that his origin, political affiliation and conviction in France and the threats directed against him, his family and friends provided substantial grounds for fearing that he would be mistreated in custody and that the Spanish police would use every possible means, including torture, to obtain information about ETA activities from him. The danger was all the more real because the author had been portrayed in the press by the Spanish authorities as an ETA leader. 3.7 On 17 March 1997, the author reiterates that there was a violation of articles 3 and 16 of the Convention and, subsidiarily, articles 2 and 22. In seeking to justify his surrender to the Spanish security forces, France is said to have violated article 2 of the Convention. France reportedly sought to justify that action on the basis of necessary solidarity between European States and cooperation against terrorism. However, neither the situation of acute conflict prevailing in the Basque country, nor solidarity between European States, nor the fight against terrorism can justify the practice of torture by the Spanish security forces. 3.4 The handing-over of the author to the Spanish security forces allegedly was a “disguised extradition” for the purpose of his incarceration and 2 A copy of the medical report is attached to the communication. 3 As of the time of adoption of these Views the CPT report on this visit had not been published. 3.8 The author further submits that, by proceeding with his deportation and surrendering him to the Spanish security forces, despite the Committee’s 45