CCPR/C/125/D/2657/2015 2.8 That same day, the author was brought before the National High Court after the officers administered medication to treat his aphonia and instructed him to repeat to the judge the same statements he had made to the Guardia Civil. Being out of the reach of the Guardia Civil, once he was in the cell at the National High Court the author told the judge and the forensic doctor about the torture to which he had been subjected during the five days of incommunicado police custody at the General Directorate of the Guardia Civil. The forensic doctor recorded the author’s statements in her report and noted a 3-mm bruise on the upper portion of the penis, minor sores on the inside of the upper lip and aphonia. 2.9 The author was transferred that same day to Soto del Real prison in Madrid. The admission report did not mention the wounds observed by the forensic doctor a few hours before. The author remained in incommunicado detention until 14 December 2007, in other words, a total of eight days from the time of his arrest (five days in the custody of the Guardia Civil and three days at the prison). Criminal proceedings initiated by the author in connection with his torture 2.10 On 21 December 2007, after visiting his son at the prison, the author’s father submitted a complaint to Court of Investigation No. 2 of Bilbao concerning the torture to which the author had been subjected at the General Directorate of the Guardia Civil between 6 and 11 December 2007. However, no response from the Court was received. 2.11 On 17 March 2008, the author’s privately engaged lawyers filed another complaint with the Duty Court of Bilbao based on a written statement from the author dated 14 January 2008 in which he reported the acts of torture to which he had been subjected during his detention. In his complaint, the author requested that the following steps be taken: take his deposition as a complainant; include all the medical reports in the file and take witness statements from the doctors who performed the examinations; identify and interview the officers of the Guardia Civil who had been in contact with the author; include his statement before the National High Court in the file; and conduct a physical and psychological evaluation. On 29 March 2008, Court of Investigation No. 2 of Bilbao moved to yield jurisdiction to the courts of Durango (a town in Bizkaia Province). On 15 April 2008, Court of Investigation No. 2 of Durango initiated preliminary proceedings regarding the offence of making threats and requested that the author’s complaint, which was written in Basque, be translated. On 29 May 2008, the translation services submitted the translation of the complaint. On 10 June 2008, Court of Investigation No. 2 of Durango rejected the Bilbao court’s motion and returned the case to Court of Investigation No. 2 of Bilbao, which agreed to hear it on 20 August 2008. 2.12 On 12 September 2008, Court of Investigation No. 2 of Bilbao received copies of six medical reports. 2 On 25 September, it requested information from the prison authorities regarding the author’s whereabouts so that his statement could be taken. On 1 December 2008, the author confirmed the validity of his complaint of 14 January 2008; he did so without the assistance of his lawyer, who had not been notified of the procedures ordered by the Court even though the author was no longer in incommunicado detention. 2.13 On 19 January 2009, Court of Investigation No. 2 of Bilbao granted a stay of proceedings because the report of the medical examination conducted upon the author’s admission to the prison reflected only the wounds mentioned by the author, without noting any physical traces likely to substantiate his claims. In the absence of this fundamental information, it was the view of the Court that the author’s complaint was uncorroborated. 2.14 On 9 February 2009, the author filed an application for reconsideration with subsidiary appeal with regard to the stay of proceedings, stating that the impugned decision was contrary to the assessment made in the forensic medical report of 11 December 2007, which did note evidence of wounds. The author claimed that the Supreme Court has established that, in regard to certain offences and under certain circumstances, the testimony of the victim holds particular value by virtue of the fact that it is the only possible source of testimony. That meant, he argued, that the investigation must be completed and, 2 GE.19-13559 Medical reports dated 7 December (one report), 8 December (one report), 10 December (two reports, one regarding 9 December and the other 10 December) and 11 December (two reports). 3