“E. Suggestions and recommendations “… “18.The Committee recommends that the legislative provisions, which state that persons accused of acts of terrorism or suspected of collaborating with such persons may not choose their lawyer, should be rescinded. It urges the State party to abandon the use of incommunicado detention and invites it to reduce the duration of pre-trial detention and to stop using duration of the applicable penalty as a criterion for determining the maximum duration of pre-trial detention.” 3.5.7Similarly, CPT considers that there are serious inadequacies in protection against torture and other severe ill-treatment of persons held in custody by the Spanish security forces as a part of anti-ETA operations. In that regard, CPT places particular emphasis on recognition of three rights denied by the Spanish authorities to persons held by the security forces: (a)The right of the person concerned to inform a close relative or another third party of his or her situation; (b)The right of access to a lawyer of one’s choice; (c)The right to be examined by a doctor of one’s choice. In the view of CPT, these rights constitute three fundamental safeguards against ill-treatment that should apply from the outset of custody (that is, as soon as the security forces deprive the person concerned of his or her freedom of movement).i 3.5.8According to the complainant, the statement at issue is the essential element of the charge against her. It is clear from a study of the proceedings that the sole item of evidence produced by the Spanish authorities in requesting the extradition of the complainant for the third time is based on the statements made by Mr. Azurmendi on 23 and 24 March 1998 while being held in custody by the Civil Guard. It was on the basis of these statements obtained as a result of torture that the indictment division of the Paris Court of Appeal ruled in favour of extradition on 21 June 2000 and the Government of France issued an extradition decree on 29 September 2000. 3.5.9According to the complainant, the French authorities and courts failed to assemble and examine, in an objective, fair and thorough manner, all the elements needed to establish that the statement at issue was obtained unlawfully. It is clear that the complaint concerning torture made by Mr. Azurmendi on 25 March 1998 when he appeared before the examining magistrate was ignored by the French courts and authorities. Similarly, the medical evidence establishing beyond a doubt that the statements made by Mr. Azurmendi while in custody were obtained as a result of torture were systematically ignored by the French authorities and courts. Moreover, the French courts systematically refused to approach the Spanish authorities in order to obtain any additional information that might have confirmed that the statements in question had not been obtained as a result of torture. 3.5.10 According to the complainant, Mr. Azurmendi’s statements were not declared to be absolutely null by the French authorities and courts. Although it has been established that Mr. Azurmendi’s statements were obtained as a result of torture, these statements form the basis of the 21 June 2000 ruling handed down by the indictment division of the Paris Court of Appeal in favour of the Spanish authorities’ third request for extradition, and the extradition decree issued by the French Government on 29 September 2000. Yet, under article 15 of the Convention against Torture, these unlawfully obtained declarations should have been declared absolutely null. 3.5.11 Lastly, it is also necessary in extradition proceedings to determine whether torture is practised in the requesting State, and whether statements obtained as a result of torture are customarily accepted by the courts of the requesting State. 3.5.12 According to the complainant, it has been established that the infliction of torture and ill treatment by the Spanish security forces is an “administrative practice” incompatible with the Convention against Torture, since it involves the repetition of acts that are contrary to article 1 of the Convention, as well as official tolerance on the part of the authorities. The practice of torture and illtreatment has been corroborated in numerous reports on Spain by international bodies over many years, and persists to the present day. In its conclusions relating to the second periodic report of Spain, the Committee against Torture expressed its concern at “the increase in the number of complaints of torture and ill-treatment, at delays in the processing of such complaints and at the impunity of a number of perpetrators of torture”.j As CPT emphasized, “it would be premature to conclude that the phenomenon of torture and severe ill-treatment had been eradicated” in Spain.k 3.5.13 The risks of torture and ill-treatment are also corroborated by many recent reports from international bodies concerning Spain: (a)The views and recommendations of the Human Rights Committee during its consideration of reports submitted by Spain under article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; (b)The reports of CPT concerning visits to Spain. In its reports, CPT notes that torture and other very severe forms of ill-treatment are still practised, particularly by the members of the Civil Guard against Basque nationals suspected of belonging to or collaborating with ETA. In the report on its visit from 22 November to 4 December 1998, CPT notes that “those allegations involved blows to various parts of the body and, in some cases, more serious forms of physical ill-treatment, including sexual assault of female detainees by male police officers, and asphyxiation by placing a plastic bag over the head”.l In certain cases, the reports include medical certificates consistent with the victims’ allegations; (c)The reports of Mr. Kooijmans and Mr. Rodley, United Nations Special Rapporteurs on the question of torture; (d)The views of the Committee against Torture during its consideration of periodic reports submitted by Spain under article 19 of the Convention. On 9 November 1999, the Committee communicated its views concerning communication No. 63/1997 submitted by the complainant, Josu Arkauz Arana against France (see paragraph 3.5.5);