disregard the prohibition of torture. By granting the Spanish extradition request, the Federal Office of Justice de facto accepted the evidence obtained through torture. The State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1On 8 November 2002, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the complaint. It does not contest the admissibility of the complaint. 4.2The State party reiterates that questions of facts and evidence as well as of innocence or guilt cannot be examined in an extradition procedure, these matters being reserved for the trial courts. Since the complainant was free to invoke her arguments before the Spanish courts, an extradition to Spain was possibly even in her own interest because it provided her with an opportunity to be released from prison following an acquittal. 4.3With regard to the complainant’s claim under article 3, the State party submits that isolated cases of maltreatment in Spanish prisons fall short of attesting to a systematic practice of torture in that country. Moreover, the complainant had failed to establish that she was at a concrete and personal risk of being tortured if extradited to Spain. In particular, the case of Josu Arkauz Arana, who had been extradited to Spain on the basis of a purely administrative procedure, which had subsequently been found illegal by the Administrative Court of Pau owing to the absence of any intervention by a judicial authority and of the possibility for the author to contact his family or lawyer, was not comparable to the complainant’s situation. While the particular circumstances of Josu Arkauz Arana’s extradition to Spain had placed him in a situation where he had been particularly vulnerable to possible abuse, the complainant had enjoyed the benefits of a judicial extradition procedure ensuring respect for her human rights and fundamental freedoms. According to the State party, the same guarantees applied in Spain which, being a party to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment as well as to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, was subject to the scrutiny of the supervising bodies of these instruments, which provided the complainant with a preventive guarantee not to be tortured. Moreover, the complainant enjoyed consular protection by Germany and could avail herself of the services of a lawyer of her choice already hired from Switzerland. The State party could also mandate its own embassy in Spain to monitor the complainant’s conditions of detention. The international attention drawn to the case provided a further guarantee against any risk of torture. 4.4With respect to the complainant’s claim under article 15 of the Convention, the State party submits that nothing establishes that Felipe San Epifanio’s testimony had been extracted by torture. The complainant herself had stated that the criminal proceedings initiated by Mr San Epifanio had been closed. Again, it was for the criminal courts in Spain and not for the Swiss extradition authorities to pronounce on the admissibility of evidence. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s submissions 5.1In his response to the State party’s submission, counsel maintains that the complainant would be at personal risk of being tortured if extradited to Spain. Such a risk was indicated by several precedents, in particular the cases of Felipe San Epifanio and Agurtzane Ezkerra Pérez de Nanclares, another convicted member of the “Barcelona” commando who had allegedly been tortured during incommunicado detention. Counsel submits a letter, dated 4 May 1994, addressed to the Juzgado de Instrucción No. 4 (Bilbao), in which Felipe San Epifanio brought criminal charges against the police, stating that the police arrested him by immobilizing him on the ground, where he received blows and kicks on his entire body, including blows to his head with a gun. Although the wounds had been stitched at hospital, no thorough medical examination had been carried out. Instead, the police allegedly had continued to maltreat him during incommunicado detention, beating him repeatedly. The following days, Mr. San Epifanio had been questioned on his links with ETA and individual members of that organization without the assistance of a lawyer. During the four days of incommunicado detention, he had allegedly been denied sleep and had not received any solid food but only large amounts of water. Counsel argues that the examining judge’s decision to close criminal proceedings initiated by Mr. San Epifanio reflects the extent of impunity enjoyed by alleged torturers of ETA suspects.k 5.2Counsel reiterates that numerous human rights reports provide evidence of the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in Spain. In particular, he cites the Committee’s most recent concluding observations relating to Spainl in which it expressed its concern about the dichotomy between Spanish official statements denying the occurrence of torture or maltreatment except in isolated cases, and the information received from non-governmental sources indicating the persistence of cases of torture and maltreatment by Spanish security forces. Moreover, the Committee noted that Spain maintained its legislation providing for incommunicado detention for up to a maximum of five days during which the detainee had neither access to a lawyer or a medical doctor of his/her choice, nor to his/her family. Counsel submits that consular protection is inaccessible during that period. 5.3With respect to the admissibility of Mr. San Epifanio’s testimony, counsel submits that the prohibition in article 15 of the Convention applies not only to criminal proceedings in Spain but also to the complainant’s extradition proceedings in Switzerland. This follows from the wording of article 15 which obliges the State party to “ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings”. Counsel challenges the State party’s argument that it had not been established that Mr. San Epifanio’s testimony had been extracted by torture, arguing that the requirements as to the evidence for this torture claim should not be overly strict.m Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. In the present case, the Committee also notes that all domestic remedies have been exhausted and that the State party has not objected to the admissibility of the communication. It therefore considers that the communication is admissible and