CAT/C/48/D/453/2011 his qualifications to represent the complainant in court, but had merely made written submissions requesting time extensions, without providing a credible explanation as to why he could not comply with the Court’s requirement. 2.16 In November 2005, the complainant was brought before the National High Court to face criminal charges as an accessory to a murder carried out by terrorists. The complainant retracted the statements he had initially made to the police and claimed that they had been obtained as a result of psychological threats, pressure and physical ill-treatment. He claimed that, if he did not say what the police officers wanted, he was beaten and compelled to stand in uncomfortable positions, although they never left any marks on his body. They threatened to arrest his mother and brother and on no occasion allowed him access to a lawyer. When he could bear no more, the complainant said he would make whatever statement the police officers wanted, but even then the ill-treatment and threats continued. Moreover, the documents relating to his statements to the police contained affirmations that he had not made. He questioned the credibility of statements by the police officers who had interrogated him at the police station and who denied having committed acts of torture, given that they took part in trial proceedings under false identification numbers that did not correspond to their professional badge numbers and thereby prevented their identification as witnesses. That measure did not comply with witness protection regulations, under which the clerk of the court is supposed to establish the correlation between real and false identification numbers. The complainant points out that the report of 21 January 2005 by the information and analysis unit of the Basque autonomous police force, submitted by the Public Prosecution Service, linked the gathering of information to the murder of Mr. Lidón Corbi, although the ETA member who allegedly received the information denied having anything to do with the complainant. 2.17 On 12 December 2005, the complainant was found guilty and sentenced to 26 years in prison. He considers that the conviction was based on his self-incriminating statements and the testimony of the police officers who questioned him. He also points out that the authorities were eager to find a guilty party and could not afford to leave the crime unpunished, given its considerable impact in certain political and police circles, as well as on public opinion. The Court may also, without perverting the course of justice or compromising its independence, have ceded to a sense of collegial solidarity, given that the victim of this heinous crime was a judge. 2.18 The complainant lodged an application for cassation before the Supreme Court for, inter alia, a violation of his fundamental right to defence and a fair trial, given the wrongful application of the Organic Law No. 19/1994 on the protection of witnesses and experts in criminal cases. He also claimed that his right to presumption of innocence had been infringed, since the prosecution’s evidence — his statement to the police and the police report submitted during the trial — had been obtained without due regard for constitutional guarantees. 2.19 On 4 December 2006, the Supreme Court dismissed the application and upheld the sentence of the National High Court. According to the complainant, the Supreme Court supported the conclusion of the National High Court that his self-incriminating statements, given when he was held incommunicado at the police station, constituted sufficient evidence.5 In its decision, the Supreme Court underlines the validity of the selfincriminating statement, given that the courts had investigated the complainant’s claim of 5 6 It is stated in the decision that: “As is faithfully recorded in the appealed sentence, the accused retracted his statement before the examining magistrate […] claiming that, on arrest, he had been subjected to mental and physical violence, all of which he had reported to the forensic doctor […] at trial he also denied the facts confessed.” GE.12-43762