8.2 The complainant recalls the provision of article 2 of the Convention that “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture”. She stresses that all the international human rights bodies have periodically and repeatedly observed persistent acts of torture and ill-treatment of persons suspected of acts of terrorism by members of the Spanish security forces, and have noted that the mechanism of incommunicado detention of persons held in police custody in Spain under its anti-terrorist legislation was conducive to the practice of torture. On several occasions officials found guilty of acts of torture have been pardoned by the Government of Spain, thus creating a climate of impunity and consequently encouraging the practice of torture. The complainant adds that all these observations are corroborated by NGOs and contradict the presumption put forward by the Government of France that torture does not exist in Spain. 8.3 The complainant repeats that prior to her expulsion she informed the French authorities that she refused to be expelled to Spain. For that reason she had undertaken a long hunger strike. The French authorities had had to transfer her by ambulance with medical personnel in attendance because of the deterioration in the state of her health. Numerous NGOs and public figures had contacted the Government in order to prevent her deportation to Spain, but without success. 8.4 The complainant refers to the recommendations of the Committee against Torture following its consideration of the second periodic report of France submitted on 6 May 1998, whereby the State party was to pay greater attention to the provisions of article 3 of the Convention, which applies equally to expulsion, refoulement and extradition.c 8.5 The complainant stresses that the fact that she was not arrested on arrival in Spain, nor interrogated by the security forces, was due to her very poor state of health after 31 days of hunger strike. She points out that it was incumbent on the State party to use every means to ensure the protection of individuals from torture. She further recalls that, in a letter of 11 January 2000 in reply to correspondence from a European Member of Parliament, the Minister of Justice of France asserted that there was a presumption that treatment in breach of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights would not take place in Spain. In this way the French Minister of Justice had given an official undertaking that the complainant would not be subjected to ill-treatment in Spain. This fact had encouraged her not to hide or flee, wrongly believing that she would not be subjected to ill-treatment. In March 2001, however, the Spanish authorities ordered her to be arrested and detained in custody, during which time she was subjected to ill-treatment. The undertaking by France that the complainant would not be tortured was thus not respected. There was a direct link between her expulsion by France to Spain and the torture to which she was subjected to in Spain. 8.6 Lastly, the complainant refers to the Committee’s views concerning the complaint T.P.S. v. Canada,d whereby the fact that the complainant’s fears were realized, and in particular the fact that he was actually subjected to torture after being removed to a country where he alleged that he was at risk of being subjected to ill-treatment of that nature, constituted a relevant factor in gauging the seriousness of his allegations. According to the complainant, it may be concluded from the fact that her fears were realized that her allegations that she would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture if she were deported to Spain were based on substantial, established and credible evidence. The State party’s expulsion of the complainant to Spain therefore constituted a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 124