applicable in this case to extradition proceedings. 3.4The complainant holds that several criteria must be satisfied if a State party is to be found to have violated article 15 of the Convention: (a)It must be established that the statement cited as evidence in the proceedings in question was obtained as a result of torture; (b)The statement in question must be an essential element of the charges brought against the author of the communication; (c)Article 15 of the Convention imposes an absolute obligation on the courts and authorities of the State in question to assemble and examine, in an objective, fair and thorough manner, all the elements needed to establish that the statement was obtained unlawfully; (d)It follows from article 15 of the Convention that the statement at issue should be declared absolutely null by the courts and authorities of the State in question; (e)It is also necessary, in extradition proceedings, to determine whether torture is practised in the requesting State, and to examine the circumstances in which the statement at issue was obtained and whether statements obtained as a result of torture are customarily accepted by the courts of the requesting State. 3.5In this case, all these criteria have been satisfied: 3.5.1According to the complainant, it has been established beyond all reasonable doubt that Mr. Azurmendi’s statements cited as evidence in the proceedings in question were obtained as a result of torture. 3.5.2As regards the assistance of a court-appointed lawyer while Mr. Azurmendi was being held in custody - the argument invoked by the State party to refute these allegations - the complainant emphasizes that, under Spain’s special anti-terrorist legislation, Mr. Azurmendi was arrested and held in custody incommunicado, that is, cut off from any contact with a lawyer of his choice or a close relative. This status was extended even when he appeared in court on 25 March 1998. 3.5.3The complainant explains in this regard that the machinery for protecting persons implicated in terrorist cases and held by the Spanish security forces is well known to be inadequate: (a)Such persons have no access to a lawyer of their choice while in custody or even, in some cases, when appearing before the examining magistrate;(b)During the period of custody, the court-appointed lawyer is present only when “official” statements are made before members of the Spanish security forces; the court appointed lawyer is never present throughout the period of custody; specifically, he does not attend all the questioning sessions.f 3.5.4In this regard, after considering the third periodic report submitted by Spain, on 18 and 19 November 1997, the Committee against Torture made the following concluding observations: “The Committee continued to receive frequent complaints of acts of torture and ill treatment during the period covered by the report. … Notwithstanding the legal guarantees as to the conditions under which it can be imposed, there are cases of prolonged detention incommunicado, when the detainee cannot receive the assistance of a lawyer of his choice, which seems to facilitate the practice of torture. Most of these complaints concern torture inflicted during such periods. The Committee is also concerned about reports that although, in accordance with article 15 of the Convention, judges do not accept as incriminating evidence statements regarded as invalid because they have been obtained under duress or torture, they nevertheless accept those same statements as incriminating other co-defendants. … Consideration should be given to eliminating instances in which extended detention incommunicado and restrictions of the rights of detainees to be assisted by a defence lawyer of their choice are authorized.”g 3.5.5The observations made by the Committee against Torture on 9 November 1999 in connection with communication No. 63/1997 submitted by Josu Arkauz Arana against France should also be borne in mind. In this decision, which was made public on 1 December 1999, the Committee noted in particular: “[D]uring the consideration of the third periodic report submitted by Spain under article 19 of the Convention, it had expressed its concern regarding the complaints of acts of torture and ill-treatment which it frequently received. It also noted that, notwithstanding the legal guarantees as to the conditions under which it could be imposed, there were cases of prolonged detention incommunicado, when the detainee could not receive the assistance of a lawyer of his choice, which seemed to facilitate the practice of torture. Most of the complaints received concerned torture inflicted during such periods. Similar concerns had already been expressed during the consideration of the second periodic report by the Committee, as well as in the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee regarding the fourth periodic report submitted by Spain under article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Furthermore, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) also reported complaints of torture or illtreatment received during its visits to Spain in 1991 and 1994, in particular from persons detained for terrorist activities. The CPT concluded that it would be premature to affirm that torture and severe ill-treatment had been eradicated in Spain.”h 3.5.6After considering the fourth periodic report submitted by Spain, the Human Rights Committee emphasized, in its observations dated 3 April 1996 (CCPR/C/79/Add.61): … “12. The Committee expresses concern at the maintenance on a continuous basis of special legislation under which persons suspected of belonging to or collaborating with armed groups may be detained incommunicado for up to five days, may not have a lawyer of their own choosing and are judged by the Audiencia Nacional without possibility of appeal. The Committee emphasizes that these provisions are not in conformity with articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant. … “…