determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant or not and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy in case a violation has been established, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within a period of 90 days, information on the measures taken to give effect to its views. 11. In accordance with the provisions of article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party has an obligation to provide an effective remedy to the author. In the Committee's view, that entails compensation, and the State party is under an obligation to ensure that there will be no such violations in future. 12. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to Communication No. 526/1993 Submitted by: Micahel and Brian Hill [represented by a non-governmental organization] Alleged victim: The authors State party: Spain Declared admissible: 22 March 1995 (fifty-third session) Date of adoption of Views: 2 April 1997 (fifty-ninth session) Spain. In July 1985, they went on holiday to Spain. The Gandía police arrested them on 16 July 1985, on suspicion of having firebombed a bar in Gandía, an accusation which the authors have denied since the time of their arrest, claiming that they were in the bar until 2:30 a.m. but did not return at 4 a.m. to set fire to the premises. Subject matter: Detention and alleged unfair trial of British citizens in Spanish courts Procedural issues: Exhaustion of domestic remedies - Sufficient substantiation of claim Substantive issues: Adequacy of arrest procedure Right to trial without undue delay - Minimum guarantees of defence in criminal proceedings - Right to review of conviction and sentence 2.2 At the police station, the authors requested the police to allow them to contact the British Consulate, so as to obtain the aid of a consular representative who could assist as an independent interpreter. The request was denied, and a young, unqualified interpreter, a student interpreter, was called to assist in the interrogation, which took place without the presence of defence counsel. The authors state that they could not express themselves properly, as they did not speak Spanish, and the interpreter’s English was very poor. As a result, serious misunderstandings allegedly arose. They deny having been informed of their rights at the time of their arrest or during the interrogation and allege that they were not properly informed of the reasons for their detention until 7 or 8 hours, respectively, after the arrest. Articles of the Covenant: 9, 10, 14 (1) (2), (3) (b), (c), (d) and (e), and (5) Article of the Optional Protocol and Rules of procedure: 5, paragraph 2 (a) and (b) Finding: Violation [articles 9, paragraph 3, 10 and 14, paragraphs 3 (c) and (d) and 5] 1. The authors of the communication are Michael Hill, born in 1952, and Brian Hill, born in 1963, both British citizens, residing in Herefordshire, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They claim to be victims of violations by Spain of articles 9 and 10 and article 14, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 (b) and (e), of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Michael Hill also invokes article 14, paragraph 3 (d), of the Covenant. The Covenant entered into force for Spain on 27 August 1977, and the Optional Protocol on 25 April 1985. 2.3 The authors further state that they were confronted with an alleged eyewitness to the crime during a so-called identification parade made up of the authors, in handcuffs, and two uniformed policemen. The witness, who initially could not describe the authors of the crime, eventually pointed them out. The facts as submitted by the authors 2.4 They also complain that their new camper, valued at 2.5 million pesetas, as well as all their money and other personal effects, were confiscated and not returned by the police. 2.1 The authors owned a construction firm in Cheltenham, United Kingdom, which declared bankruptcy during the detention of the authors in 39