whether domestic remedies had been exhausted, the Committee noted that it had been impossible for the complainant to seek an effective remedy against the expulsion order and the decision specifying Spain as the country of destination, as there had been no time to act between the serving of the orders and the enforcement of the expulsion. The Committee considered that in the present case, the criterion followed in the Arkauz Arana case applied, since an appeal against the ministerial deportation order issued in respect of the complainant on 31 August 1999 but served on the very day of her expulsion, at the same time as the order indicating the country of destination, would not have been effective or even possible, since the deportation measure was enforced immediately following notification thereof, leaving the person concerned no time to seek a remedy. The Committee therefore found that article 22, paragraph 5 (b), did not preclude it from declaring the communication admissible. 6.2 Accordingly, the Committee against Torture decided on 20 November 2002 that the communication was admissible. State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 The State party, in its observations of 22 October 2003, notes that in accordance with the decision on admissibility in the Arana case, the issue before the Committee in the present case is not whether the complainant was actually subjected to acts in breach of article 3 in March 2001 but whether, on the date of the enforcement of the removal measure, the French authorities could have considered that she would face real risks in the event of her return to Spain. But it was not possible to reach that conclusion on the basis of examination of her situation. 7.2 The State party adds that there is no reason to rule out sending members of ETA back to Spain as a matter of principle. There is no “consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights” within the meaning of article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention in Spain. Spain conducts a policy of prevention and punishment of terrorist actions carried out by ETA, as is perfectly legitimate, provided that the measures taken in that regard comply with fundamental guarantees. The State party recalls that Spain is a State governed by the rule of law that has entered into international commitments relating to human rights, and respect for individual freedoms is ensured, inter alia, by the independence given to the judicial authorities. The State party further refers to a decision of 12 June 1998 handed down by the European Commission on Human Rights in a case concerning France, in which the Commission ruled that the mere fact of membership of ETA offered insufficient grounds for considering that, if sent back to Spain, the person concerned faced a serious risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. 7.3 The State party points out that no aspect of the consideration of the individual situation of the complainant led it to believe that she would be exposed to serious risks of torture or ill-treatment within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention if she were sent back to Spain. Moreover, the State party notes that the complainant did not apply to the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons for refugee status or for the issue of a residence permit on grounds of territorial asylum. Since the complainant did not take those steps, she did not indicate the personal risks to which she now claims to have been exposed. Similarly, she did not during her detention take any steps to seek admission to another country, although she was aware of the fact that she had been banned from French territory under a judicial decision and that on leaving prison she would be liable to be sent back to Spain. The complainant was not the subject of any national or international arrest warrant, nor a request for extradition. No parallels 122