142. The Committee considered the third periodic (CCPR/C/58/Add.l and 3) at its 1018th to 1021st and 30 October 1990 (see CCPR/C/SR.lOlS-1021). report of Spain meetings, held on 29 The report was introduced by the representative of the State party, who recalled that the Spanish Constitution guaranteed the full exercise of human right6 and noted that substantial progress had been made in that respect through reform6 in the administration of justice. The courts, especially the Constitutional Court, had handed down numerous decisions based on the provisions of the Covenant. 143. frm . . the COVERT& is iJluL- 144. With regard to that issue , member6 of the Committee asked whether a provision of the Covenant could be directly invoked before the courts; whether any court decisions or rulings had been directly based on provisions of the Covenant: whether the authorities of the Autonomous Communities, including the legielative authorities, had been made aware of the provisions of the Covenant: and whether such provisions had been reflected in their statutes. They asked al60 whether the civil and political rights enumerated in title Zr section 1 of the Constitution were automatically applicabbls within the Autonomous Communities or had to be enacted separately. 145. In addition, member6 of the Committee wished to know whether, in case of a conflict between a law and the Covenant, the courts would apply the Covenant over and above the law, and in that case, whether the law in question would be repealed: whether it was possible for a law enacted subsequent to the Covenant but which ran counter to its provisions to be declared unconstitutional8 whether there had been any proceeding6 before the ordinary courts which had been taken on appeal to the Constitutional Court by an individual: whether all of the rights enshrined in the Covenant were provided for in the Constitution and relevant legislationr and what was the position of the Covenant in the hierarchy of norms. They also wished to know why the grounds on which discrimination was prohibited under article 53 (2) of the Constitution differed from those mentioned in the Covenant} what were the reasons for establishing exception6 to the right of aliens to enjoy civil and political rights* whether the remedy of nmpar9 might be used in trio event of violation of rights guaranteed under the Covenant , and whether that remedy and the remedy of meas co.rpu6 remained under a state of emergency or siege. Members of the Committee also wishea to receive further information on the powers of the courts and parliament6 of the Autonomous Communities; on how the Constitutional Court had resolved conflicts between those courts and the courts of the State; on the precise competence of the Constitutional Court with regard to individual cases and decision6 renderer. by a lower courti on the competence of the Parliamentary Committee) on the number of complaints concerning rights specifically covered by the Covenant dealt with by the People’s Advocate) and on the agreements and sharing of competence between the People’s Advocate and his opposite numbers in the various Autonomous: Communities under Act No. 3611985. -35-